moral relativism

[henry quirk]

"Morality is progressing/improving as it gets closer and closer to my own subjective prejudices."

Are there no moral positions that we can say apply to all men, everywhere, at any time?

Let's talk, just a bit, about slavery.

Slavery, buyin', sellin', usin' human beings as property, has been a feature of civilization from the start. Another feature has been, let's call it, a universal reluctance on the part of folks to be slaves (even the slaver, as he buys and sells, himself is reluctant to be a slave).

Is this universal reluctance just a subjective prejudice, or is it indicative of sumthin' else or more?

[Skepdick]

Me, I'm always the first to admit that all of my points in regard to moral and political and spiritual value judgments are just subjective opinions rooted existentially in dasein.

But if they are rooted in dasein and they have causal influence on your behaviour then they are as objective as any other causal factor.

It is peculiar that you are using the word "just" to characterise it. Almost as if you expected it to be something else. Something more.

Those who forget good and evil and seek only to know the facts are more likely to achieve good than those who view the world through the distorting medium of their own desires. --Bertrand Russell

The irony in your perspective is that you are distorting what morality is by wanting it to be something else. Something more.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, when I come across an argument such as this I speculate instead that what [perhaps] I am hearing is this...

"Morality is progressing/improving as it gets closer and closer to my own subjective prejudices."

And toward "subtlety" is precisely the direction I am going in when you factor in all of the countless existential variables that go into the making of any particular individual's personal prejudices. Some historical, some cultural, some experiential.

You are getting bogged down in the connotation. It is precisely your prejudices which lead you to chop up the worldly phenomena and value the "objective" more than the "subjective".

If you focus on the denotation of "objectivity" then there are two possible perspectives here.

Subjectivity doesn't exist. Everything is objective. Objectively speaking you don't like chocolate and I do. Both preferences exist. Objectively.
Objectivity doesn't exist. Objectivity is just an inter-subjective construct. You call this red.. I call this red.

If you want to look past your historical/cultural prejudices you ought to examine the subjective/objective distinction. Your abstract "subjective" beliefs have causal "objective" effect on reality. To a physicist ANY force which has a causal effect on reality is objective!

When you get rid of your cultural biases with respect to the subjective/objective distinction and you adopt amore causality-centric world-view then "subjectivity" is just downward causation.

Again, given my own approach to morality, we need to take this "general description intellectual assessment" back around to capital punishment. Subjective personal opinions regarding the morality of it rooted in dasein and objective facts rooted empirically in the actual existence of executions themselves.

Reconfigure your point above so that it is applicable to the moral conflagration that is embedded in the reality of capital punishment as an actual political issue.

What can be denoted here as in fact true for all of us in the either/or world, and what is merely connoted as true for some but not for others in the is/ought world.

And how specifically does this relate to capital punishment?

Trivially. Pick any nation on Planet Earth at random. If entropy is uniform then the expected probability of any given country on the planet to practice capital punishment should be 50/50. It isn't.

108 countries have abolished it entirely.
7 have it only for war crimes.
26 have abolished it in practice (but not in law)
54 retain it.

And I further predict that in 200 years more there will be even fewer countries practicing capital punishment.
Because the 'subjective prejudices" of people who pay attention to history will have caused the immoral practice of capital punishment to fall ot of favour.

None of these historical "trends" establishes a deontological argument that capital punishment is inherently/necessarily irrational and thus immoral. Even if every single country on earth abolished it, it would not make the arguments of those who favor capital punishment go away. Not in a No God world.

Take for example the arguments made here...

https://deathpenalty.procon.org/questio ... y-immoral/

...that the death penalty is moral. Make them just go away. Or back to the film Dead Man Walking and the arguments made by those who wanted Matthew Poncelet executed. Make them go away.

Even in regard to those who reduce state executions down to simple revenge...a desire to see someone who killed a loved one killed in turn...how is that necessarily/inherently irrational/immoral?

How here are philosophers any different from anyone else who basically is left sputtering..."I just know it is". Where's the argument that proves that it is?

There are literally millions and millions of men, women and children around the globe who would not concur with this at all.

So what? To defend this reductionist anecdotal, point-in-time world-view is to pretend that 150 countries practicing capital punishment is the same as 54 countries practicing it; or 1 country practicing it.

It's to pretend that any improvement is no improvement at all until Utopia arrives. That's just a really bad case of the Nirvana fallacy

To defend this absurd world-view is to claim that 150=54=1 because all of them are more than 0.

Again, as though this particular political prejudice of yours makes the arguments of those who support the death penalty go away. Just as those on the other end of the political spectrum have their own set of assumptions providing them with their own political prejudices that back it. And, from their perspective, it's your frame of mind that is labelled absurd. As though you don't come up with your own set of assumptions and then reduce them down to yet another "one of us" [the rational and the righteous] vs. "one of them" [the irrational and the unrighteous].

What leaps out here [to me] is not what you believe but that anyone who doesn't believe the same thing is...a fool?

Thus...

Yes, if you insist that "trends" equal "progress" and that "progress" equals others coming over to your own moral and political prejudices, then, sure, this works for you. But from my frame of mind that's not the same as establishing deontologically that all rational folks are obligated to think as you do. About capital punishment or anything else.

Nothing I've said is about "obligation". Everything I am saying is descriptive - not prescriptive.

Well, to me, it sure sounds as though the way you describe the moral options here in regard to capital punishment is prescriptive. Others are welcome think and to advocate and to speak of the morality here as they choose...but you do seem to suggest to me that if they don't think like you do, they are wrong.

As for this...

But if you attempt to practice capital punishment ex judicially - we will imprison you.

...not sure what you mean. A lynching party? A frame of mind where it's always my way or the highway when punishment is involved?

As for morality being linked to "natural selection", this can be [has been] taken all the way to the reeducation camps -- even the death camps -- historically. Take human sexuality. What is natural here?

So what? NIhilism has been taken to extremeties also. Every ideology has its extremists. Even centrism.

So what? It still doesn't amount to those at any particular point on the ideological/moral/political/spiritual spectrum providing us with the definitive rational argument in regard to capital punishment. Arguments are still rooted historically, culturally, and interpersonally out in particular worlds understood in particular [prejudiced] ways.

Again, we seem to be in two different discussions here. If you get cancer as a result of the "natural causes" rooted in human biology, and then die from it, there is no moral factor involved. With death by execution there is. Few will argue that getting cancer is immoral. It's just a part of nature. A natural disease. But allowing the state to execute us? Here there are all manner of conflicting assessments.

Why?!?!? You are just re-stating your double standard.

No, I'm merely suggesting that any particular individual's standard should not be framed as the optimal or the only rational standard.

Why is death caused by humans about morality, but death caused by viruses, or bacteria, or organ failure, or immune system failure not about morality?

Well, viruses can be about morality, when that is how some frame them in regard to government policies that revolve around lockdowns and masks and social distancing and vaccination. But viruses don't choose to infect and then kill someone. Whereas mere mortals in any given community do choose to vote for politicians who either favor capital punishment morally or do not. The difference is just obvious. At least in those nations that practice "democracy and the rule of law."

"It's just part of nature" is such a stupid argument. Murder is also just part of nature.

See, there you go again. Even though viruses are clearly a part of nature, anyone who notes this is making a stupid argument. And murders are committed not by viruses but by our own species. And, depending on who kills who in any given set of circumstances, the judgments can be severe. Including capital punishment.

Morality is about the well-being of humans! Anything which threatens human well-being is about morality.

Okay, consider the mental, emotional and psychological well-being of those who justify the execution of men and women who murdered their own loved ones. That isn't included in your own dogmatic assessment of true well-being? Or those who construe the well-being of the unborn vs. the well-being of women forced to give birth? Or those who construe the well-being of men and women who demand the right to bear arms vs. those who construe the well-being of men and women who want no guns in the hands of anyone other than the police?

Well-being issue by issue by issue always comes down to your own, what, authoritarian frame of mind?

Yes, and if those ideas and abstract beliefs are ever and always "shape-shifting" historically and culturally and with respect to your own individual experiences, the consequences can be all over the board. Whereas gravity is the board throughout the universe.

Where did you study physics? Gravity has different strengths/magnitude in different locations in the universe.

That's not the point. Gravity may vary given the mass of objects out in space, but the laws that govern it are always the same. Whereas while laws relating to capital punishment may vary considerably in different jurisdictions there is no "moral law" applicable to all of them.

Or not to the best of my knowledge.

If the consequences can be "all over the board" then surely one would expect murder laws to be all over the board also?

50% of countries have them.
50% of countries don't have them.

How come that's not the case?

We are construing consequences here differently. From my frame of mind, if you commit murder in any particular jurisdiction, the consequences will revolve around the laws enacted pertaining to murder. And laws are invariably related to behaviors deemed either to be right or wrong. And that to me comes back to moral relativism rooted historical, culturally and experientially.

Then [somehow] you are still able to convince yourself that morality is objective. Like gravity. Whereas, given my own assumptions above, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Anything which has a measurable effect is objective.

Human longevity has increased.
Human poverty has decreased.
Human freedom has increased.
Human education has increased.
Human well-being has increased.

There are hundreds of categories on this website showing trends of improvement spannind centuries.

There is a driving force behind ALL of that change. What do you call that driving force? I call it morality.

So what? That still does not establish an objective philosophical argument pertaining to capital punishment, abortion, homosexuality, gay wedding, animal rights, sport hunting, just war, the role of government, healthcare, immigration, gender roles, capitalism vs. socialism, conscription, gun ownership, separation of church and state, cloning, stem cell research, genetically modified foods, social justice, political rights, natural rights...and on and on and on.

[Skepdick]

Again, given my own approach to morality, we need to take this "general description intellectual assessment" back around to capital punishment. Subjective personal opinions regarding the morality of it rooted in dasein and objective facts rooted empirically in the actual existence of executions themselves.

Reconfigure your point above so that it is applicable to the moral conflagration that is embedded in the reality of capital punishment as an actual political issue.

What can be denoted here as in fact true for all of us in the either/or world, and what is merely connoted as true for some but not for others in the is/ought world.

Ok but why? Why this particular framing?

In the USA 1500 people have died due to capital punishment since 1976.

2500 people died of COVID yesterday.

Why is your moral outrage so obsessed with capital punishment, but not on COVID?

None of these historical "trends" establishes a deontological argument that capital punishment is inherently/necessarily irrational and thus immoral. Even if every single country on earth abolished it, it would not make the arguments of those who favor capital punishment go away. Not in a No God world.

That's because ALL arguments are contingent. About anything. And everything. That's not morality's fault. That's a flaw with arguments/argumentation as a human practice.

Even in regard to those who reduce state executions down to simple revenge...a desire to see someone who killed a loved one killed in turn...how is that necessarily/inherently irrational/immoral?

I can ask the inverse!

A desire to see an end to capital punishment. How is that inherently rational/moral?

Every argument has an equally powerful counter-argument. What is your mechanism for resolving opposing arguments?

How here are philosophers any different from anyone else who basically is left sputtering..."I just know it is". Where's the argument that proves that it is?

You are super-confused about what it means "to prove" something.

Where is the argument which proves this color is red?
Where is the argument which proves this color is red?

The notion of "proof" exists in Mathematics and Logic only. To prove something means to demonstrate that it's a logical consequence of the premises/axioms.

There are no premises/axioms in this universe. That's not how the world works - every premise we use for deductive reasoning is obtained by induction.

Again, as though this particular political prejudice of yours makes the arguments of those who support the death penalty go away. Just as those on the other end of the political spectrum have their own set of assumptions providing them with their own political prejudices that back it. And, from their perspective, it's your frame of mind that is labelled absurd. As though you don't come up with your own set of assumptions and then reduce them down to yet another "one of us" [the rational and the righteous] vs. "one of them" [the irrational and the unrighteous].

What leaps out here [to me] is not what you believe but that anyone who doesn't believe the same thing is...a fool?

Thus...

You are missing the forest for the trees.

ALL proponents of ALL moral points of view think their moral view is The One True Moral View.

The question boils down to "Who decides which moral views are immoral?"

Reality decides. Society decides. NOT any particular individual.

Well, to me, it sure sounds as though the way you describe the moral options here in regard to capital punishment is prescriptive.

Then stop misinterpreting me.

Others are welcome think and to advocate and to speak of the morality here as they choose...but you do seem to suggest to me that if they don't think like you do, they are wrong.

Obviously! Because I believe in objective morality and you don't.

But THEN you want to argue that I am "wrong"?!? On what grounds?

...not sure what you mean. A lynching party? A frame of mind where it's always my way or the highway when punishment is involved?

Yep! No different to any law of physics - it comes with consequences.

So what? It still doesn't amount to those at any particular point on the ideological/moral/political/spiritual spectrum providing us with the definitive rational argument in regard to capital punishment.

Arguments are still rooted historically, culturally, and interpersonally out in particular worlds understood in particular [prejudiced] ways.

So what? You can't provide any definitive rational argument that this color is red.

And you continue to use "prejudice" as a pejorative.

I am prejudiced against murder. It's a great prejudice!

No, I'm merely suggesting that any particular individual's standard should not be framed as the optimal or the only rational standard.

Nobody is even suggesting individual standards matter. Collectively agreed-upon standards do.

Well, viruses can be about morality, when that is how some frame them in regard to government policies that revolve around lockdowns and masks and social distancing and vaccination. But viruses don't choose to infect and then kill someone.

You are assuming people have free will! What if we don't ?

Whereas mere mortals in any given community do choose to vote for politicians who either favor capital punishment morally or do not. The difference is just obvious. At least in those nations that practice "democracy and the rule of law."

The difference is obvious. But why is it relevant? I don't care if I die by the choice of a human; or the choice of a bear.

Whatever causal factors are at play here - none if it matters to me. Death is equifinal.

See, there you go again. Even though viruses are clearly a part of nature, anyone who notes this is making a stupid argument. And murders are committed not by viruses but by our own species.

Yes! And humans are part of nature. Therefore murder is natual.

And, depending on who kills who in any given set of circumstances, the judgments can be severe. Including capital punishment.

Yes! And capital punishment is part of nature. Therefore capital punishment is natural.

This line of reasoning doesn't get you anywhere. Because logic isn't useful for that sort of thing.

Okay, consider the mental, emotional and psychological well-being of those who justify the execution of men and women who murdered their own loved ones. That isn't included in your own dogmatic assessment of true well-being?

It is. Your well-being doesn't trump anybody else's wellbeing. You are trying to frame this as a zero-sum game.

I can never be happy until I kill 6 million people. Whaaaaa!

This is the usual form of the utility-monster arguments in Utilitarianism.

Or those who construe the well-being of the unborn vs. the well-being of women forced to give birth? Or those who construe the well-being of men and women who demand the right to bear arms vs. those who construe the well-being of men and women who want no guns in the hands of anyone other than the police?

And they are all welcome to pursue those goals. Now convince us how my right to bear arms undermines your wellbeing.

Especially since I am the guy you call when somebody breaks into your house.

Well-being issue by issue by issue always comes down to your own, what, authoritarian frame of mind?

Oh. I don't know... maybe we could use empiricism to determine whether getting your heart ripped out is harmful or not.

That's not the point. Gravity may vary given the mass of objects out in space, but the laws that govern it are always the same.

You mean exactly like murder laws are the same in every country, yet different murder rates are observed?

Whereas while laws relating to capital punishment may vary considerably in different jurisdictions there is no "moral law" applicable to all of them.

Or not to the best of my knowledge.

Varry how? In wording? That's not a relevant variation if they leads to the exact same consequence.

We are construing consequences here differently. From my frame of mind, if you commit murder in any particular jurisdiction, the consequences will revolve around the laws enacted pertaining to murder. And laws are invariably related to behaviors deemed either to be right or wrong. And that to me comes back to moral relativism rooted historical, culturally and experientially.

You have missed the point again.

How is it possible that 190 countries in the world. Each and every one of them having historical and cultural differences. Each and every one of them being subjected to moral relativism.

Every single one of them outlawing murder. Surely there had to have been a couple of countries that went "Nah! Murder's cool. We'll allow it!"

Doesn't this coincidence strike you as unlikely?

So what? That still does not establish an objective philosophical argument pertaining to capital punishment, abortion, homosexuality, gay wedding, animal rights, sport hunting, just war, the role of government, healthcare, immigration, gender roles, capitalism vs. socialism, conscription, gun ownership, separation of church and state, cloning, stem cell research, genetically modified foods, social justice, political rights, natural rights...and on and on and on.

That is because arguments don't establish ANYTHING!

Arguments are just instruments for programming other minds. They are tools of persuasion, not truth.

A true argument can change a mind.
A false argument can change a mind.

But if you really believe in free will then there should be absolutely no argument which convinces you that this color is red.
Because you can freely choose to call it blue; or green; or elephant - or anything you want to! And you wouldn't be wrong in doing that because nobody can agree on what it means "to be wrong".

There are no preferential descriptions. Once you abandon the controlled vocabulary of society, what the hell does it mean for an argument to be "right" or "wrong" ?!?

[Age]

That is because arguments don't establish ANYTHING!

What does the word 'argument' even mean or refer to, to you?

And, how could a sound AND valid 'argument' NOT establish ANY 'thing' AT ALL?

A sound AND valid 'argument' could NOT be REFUTED. Therefore, what 'that' argument is 'saying/proposing' IS ESTABLISHED, IRREFUTABLY, and forever more.

Arguments are just instruments for programming other minds.

Besides my continual asking what are these 'minds', EXACTLY, that 'you', human beings, keep going on about, in the days when this was being written, and I NEVER get ANY CLARITY AT ALL for, if 'arguments' are 'programming' 'you', human beings, then they ARE 'establishing' 'things'.

They are tools of persuasion, not truth.

If that is what SOME of 'you' are ATTEMPTING to do, then NO wonder it has taken 'you' millennia to get where you are 'now', when this was being written. And, WHERE that is is LOST and CONFUSED, STILL.

Let us NOT FORGET that a sound AND valid 'argument' IS IRREFUTABLE, and thus thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', AS WELL.

A true argument can change a mind.
A false argument can change a mind.

But if you really believe in free will then there should be absolutely no argument which convinces you that this color is red.
Because you can freely choose to call it blue; or green; or elephant - or anything you want to! And you wouldn't be wrong in doing that because nobody can agree on what it means "to be wrong".

BUT what makes ANY 'thing' Right OR Wrong is just AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, themselves.

There are no preferential descriptions. Once you abandon the controlled vocabulary of society, what the hell does it mean for an argument to be "right" or "wrong" ?!?

What it means for an argument to be 'right' or 'wrong' is that 'that' argument is 'right' or 'wrong'. What else could it mean?

[Skepdick]

And, how could a sound AND valid 'argument' NOT establish ANY 'thing' AT ALL?

How could it establish anything? Who says I have to accept/agree with a "sound" and "valid" argument?

A true relativist should have no problem understanding this. Your cultural and historical upbringing has indoctrinated you into accepting "sound and valid arguments". Mine hasn't.

If you are going to reject one social norm - reject them all.

[RCSaunders]

And, how could a sound AND valid 'argument' NOT establish ANY 'thing' AT ALL?

How could it establish anything? Who says I have to accept/agree with a "sound" and "valid" argument?

A true relativist should have no problem understanding this. Your cultural and historical upbringing has indoctrinated you into accepting "sound and valid arguments". Mine hasn't.

If you are going to reject one social norm - reject them all.

Quite right! Nothing is true or right because it is socially accepted or most people believe it. Every individual has their own mind and must use it to discover what is true. Learn from others, sure, so long as it is one's own reasoning that brings them to agree with it and not some dependence on some, "social norm."

[iambiguous]

Again, given my own approach to morality, we need to take this "general description intellectual assessment" back around to capital punishment. Subjective personal opinions regarding the morality of it rooted in dasein and objective facts rooted empirically in the actual existence of executions themselves.

Reconfigure your point above so that it is applicable to the moral conflagration that is embedded in the reality of capital punishment as an actual political issue.

What can be denoted here as in fact true for all of us in the either/or world, and what is merely connoted as true for some but not for others in the is/ought world.

Ok but why? Why this particular framing?

In the USA 1500 people have died due to capital punishment since 1976.

2500 people died of COVID yesterday.

Why is your moral outrage so obsessed with capital punishment, but not on COVID?

You are again [in my opinion] avoiding my suggestion that you frame your argument above in regard to the issue of capital punishment.

I don't myself experience moral outrage at capital punishment in general. Why? Because "I" am "fractured and fragmented" in regard to it as a moral issue. I just happened to pick the death penalty as an issue we can zero in on in regard to conflicting philosophical/moral/political value judgments. Choose another political conflagration if you wish.

And any rational outrage one might have regarding covid isn't directed at the virus itself. We don't blame the virus for doing its thing in nature. We don't accuse it of being immoral. Instead, the outrage revolves around individual reactions to the pandemic. For example, some insist that those who refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks, practice safe social distancing etc., are making the pandemic itself all the more virulent.

With the death penalty, though, morality is everywhere among our our species. Is it "cruel and unusual" punishment? Is revenge justified? Should the state be involved in executing citizens?

None of these historical "trends" establishes a deontological argument that capital punishment is inherently/necessarily irrational and thus immoral. Even if every single country on earth abolished it, it would not make the arguments of those who favor capital punishment go away. Not in a No God world.

That's because ALL arguments are contingent. About anything. And everything. That's not morality's fault. That's a flaw with arguments/argumentation as a human practice.

That's my point. That moral arguments unfold out in particular worlds [historically, culturally and individually] understood in particular ways. Contingency, chance and change are everywhere in human interactions. Morality in and of itself isn't to blame because morality is only the recognition that when human beings interact there are always going to be conflicting wants and needs. So, "rules of behavior" need to be established in order to reward some behaviors while punishing others. The "human condition" in a nutshell.

But...

But the moral objectivists among us insist that morality must revolve around their own set of assumptions. Their own conclusions regarding which behaviors will be rewarded or punished. "One of us" vs. "one of them".

Whereas in regard to things like the death penalty both sides can articulate reasonable arguments. Those in favor of it can argue that someone who kills a loved one caused them great pain and suffering and ought to be killed in turn. But then the friends and family and loved ones of the person about to be executed experience great pain and suffering when the state murders him or her. And murder is often how they see it. But state executions are not murder because they are within the law.

Even in regard to those who reduce state executions down to simple revenge...a desire to see someone who killed a loved one killed in turn...how is that necessarily/inherently irrational/immoral?

I can ask the inverse!

A desire to see an end to capital punishment. How is that inherently rational/moral?

Every argument has an equally powerful counter-argument. What is your mechanism for resolving opposing arguments?

What else is there but "moderation, negotiation and compromise"? Each nation/state/local jurisdiction comes up with its own policies predicated on election results.

How here are philosophers any different from anyone else who basically is left sputtering..."I just know it is". Where's the argument that proves that it is?

You are super-confused about what it means "to prove" something.

Where is the argument which proves this color is red?
Where is the argument which proves this color is red?

What are you arguing, that having a "personal opinion" about the morality of capital punishment is the same as differentiating red from blue?

How we prove things relating to color revolves around the science of color. So, where is the scientific equivalent of proving whether capital punishment is either moral or immoral?

It's the difference between establishing that the colors in the American flag are red, white and blue, and establishing whether it is moral or immoral to use the American flag as a diaper.

The notion of "proof" exists in Mathematics and Logic only. To prove something means to demonstrate that it's a logical consequence of the premises/axioms.

There are no premises/axioms in this universe. That's not how the world works - every premise we use for deductive reasoning is obtained by induction.

Then why [to me] do you seem so adamant regarding your own views of capital punishment. To me you seem to suggest that only a fool would not view it as you do. That your own value judgment here is not in turn but a political prejudice rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein.

Again, as though this particular political prejudice of yours makes the arguments of those who support the death penalty go away. Just as those on the other end of the political spectrum have their own set of assumptions providing them with their own political prejudices that back it. And, from their perspective, it's your frame of mind that is labelled absurd. As though you don't come up with your own set of assumptions and then reduce them down to yet another "one of us" [the rational and the righteous] vs. "one of them" [the irrational and the unrighteous].

What leaps out here [to me] is not what you believe but that anyone who doesn't believe the same thing is...a fool?

You are missing the forest for the trees.

ALL proponents of ALL moral points of view think their moral view is The One True Moral View.

The question boils down to "Who decides which moral views are immoral?"

Reality decides. Society decides. NOT any particular individual.

"Reality" being what any particular "society" deems the most rational/virtuous policies to be given the historical and cultural and experiential context being considered. I merely note that once you get down to individuals, personal experiences can be especially "vast and varied". I then root individual value judgments here as I do in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Others are welcome think and to advocate and to speak of the morality here as they choose...but you do seem to suggest to me that if they don't think like you do, they are wrong.

Obviously! Because I believe in objective morality and you don't.

But THEN you want to argue that I am "wrong"?!? On what grounds?

I am not arguing that you are "wrong"...or wrong. I am suggesting only that, as with me, your own value judgments in regard to capital punishment are rooted existentially in the life that you lived. And not on any capacity on your part to provide us with an argument that does establish the existence of an objective morality here. Unless of course what you construe objective morality to be as that which is encompassed in "historical trends".

...not sure what you mean. A lynching party? A frame of mind where it's always my way or the highway when punishment is involved?

Yep! No different to any law of physics - it comes with consequences.

Well, lynching someone certainly does involve the laws of physics. No doubt about an objective reality there. But the morality of it...? Suppose the "collectively agreed upon standards" of any given community embrace lynching as moral?

Well, viruses can be about morality, when that is how some frame them in regard to government policies that revolve around lockdowns and masks and social distancing and vaccination. But viruses don't choose to infect and then kill someone.

You are assuming people have free will! What if we don't ?

On the contrary, I assume that we don't. But I also assume that there is no way in which I can demonstrate this. So -- click -- I exchange posts with other here given the assumption that we do.

See, there you go again. Even though viruses are clearly a part of nature, anyone who notes this is making a stupid argument. And murders are committed not by viruses but by our own species.

Yes! And humans are part of nature. Therefore murder is natual.

No, what is natural is that human beings come into the world genetically hard-wired to commit murder...to kill others. But given that the overwhelming preponderance of us don't commit murder or kill others, there's the nurture factor. And it is the nurturing factor that includes the part about morality. Embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

We are construing consequences here differently. From my frame of mind, if you commit murder in any particular jurisdiction, the consequences will revolve around the laws enacted pertaining to murder. And laws are invariably related to behaviors deemed either to be right or wrong. And that to me comes back to moral relativism rooted historical, culturally and experientially.

You have missed the point again.

In other words, I refuse to agree with your point again. After all, since you construe yourself to be a moral objectivist, you will divide the world up between "one of us" [the rational and righteous few] and "one of them" [the irrational and unrighteous many].

How is it possible that 190 countries in the world. Each and every one of them having historical and cultural differences. Each and every one of them being subjected to moral relativism.

Every single one of them outlawing murder. Surely there had to have been a couple of countries that went "Nah! Murder's cool. We'll allow it!"

Doesn't this coincidence strike you as unlikely?

Back again to historical trends. Trends that happen to coincide with your own moral dogmas. Therefore "proof" that capital punishment is inherently/necessarily immoral. So, what are the historical trends in regard to "abortion, homosexuality, gay wedding, animal rights, sport hunting, just war, the role of government, healthcare, immigration, gender roles, capitalism vs. socialism, conscription, gun ownership, separation of church and state, cloning, stem cell research, genetically modified foods, social justice, political rights, natural rights...and on and on and on."

So, that we can all know precisely what we are morally and politically -- and spiritually? -- obligated to think about them too.

[Skepdick]

You are again [in my opinion] avoiding my suggestion that you frame your argument above in regard to the issue of capital punishment.

I am indeed! I am doing it consciously. Precisely because framing "morality" as something humans do to other humans misses the forrest for the trees.

When I frame morality as the wellbeing of humans, then anything which unnecessarily undermines our wellbeing is immoral.

And any rational outrage one might have regarding covid isn't directed at the virus itself. We don't blame the virus for doing its thing in nature.

We don't accuse it of being immoral. Instead, the outrage revolves around individual reactions to the pandemic. For example, some insist that those who refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks, practice safe social distancing etc., are making the pandemic itself all the more virulent.

With the death penalty, though, morality is everywhere among our our species. Is it "cruel and unusual" punishment? Is revenge justified? Should the state be involved in executing citizens?

In problem-solving we don't blame anyone or anything. We look at all the causal factors. We identify the ones which are in our control. We change them towards maximising well-being.

The reason we "blame" humans is because social pressure and punishment is a mechanism of control. Some times the causal factors of immoral outcomes are the choices of other humans. And the way to prevent immoral outcomes from happening is to change human minds and behavior. Which (in the grand scheme of things) is much cheaper and much easier than changing how nature works.

We can't blame the virus because viruses don't respond to blame, punishment, argumentation, ostracism and disincentives. The social mind-games are ineffective on viruses - they are not a mechanism of control.

Blame, punishment, incentive and disincentive are just some of the mechanisms of objective morality. We make people stop doing the immoral things - like murder; or we make people do the moral - like vaccinate.

And over long enough periods of time the results are self-evident. Humans live longer, happier, healthier, wealthier, better educated, more fulfilled lives.

That's my point. That moral arguments unfold out in particular worlds [historically, culturally and individually] understood in particular ways. Contingency, chance and change are everywhere in human interactions. Morality in and of itself isn't to blame because morality is only the recognition that when human beings interact there are always going to be conflicting wants and needs. So, "rules of behavior" need to be established in order to reward some behaviors while punishing others. The "human condition" in a nutshell.

So then we agree on the mechanisms of manifesting morality!

But...

But the moral objectivists among us insist that morality must revolve around their own set of assumptions. Their own conclusions regarding which behaviors will be rewarded or punished. "One of us" vs. "one of them".

Whereas in regard to things like the death penalty both sides can articulate reasonable arguments. Those in favor of it can argue that someone who kills a loved one caused them great pain and suffering and ought to be killed in turn. But then the friends and family and loved ones of the person about to be executed experience great pain and suffering when the state murders him or her. And murder is often how they see it. But state executions are not murder because they are within the law.

But the moral subjectivist do the exact same thing. And so do the relativists. And the nihilists. Everybody does it. That's neither interesting nor relevant to anything.

There is conflict every time both sides can articulate an argument. Every murder accused articulates an arguments in defense of their actions.
Every pro and anti-vaxxer articulates an argument about their choices.

If you are a relativist about morality, why aren't you a relativist about the "reasonableness of arguments" ?

If moral issues are unresolvable, then arguments (of any kind) must be unresolvable too.

You say this is red.
I say this is red.

If both of us are 100% committed to standing our ground and deffend our narratives without deferring the resolution to an external adjudicator (society, facts, a coin-toss) there is no way to resolve this. We are both right. And we are both wrong. And so what?

What else is there but "moderation, negotiation and compromise"?

There are those things. And there is benevolent despotism.

Each nation/state/local jurisdiction comes up with its own policies predicated on election results.

Exactly. And doesn't it strike you as rather peculiar that 200 nations on Earth deciding their own, independent policies on issues largely arrive at the same (or similar) policies on moral issues.

Leading us right back to entropy. If moral relativism was true then all nations should divide themselves up 50/50 on all moral issues.

50% pro-murder. 50% anti-murder.
50% pro-theft. 50% anti-theft.
50% pro-rape. 50% anti-rape.
50% pro-homosexuality. 50% anti-homosexuality.

And that distribution should remain constant over the entire history of humanity e.g if 10 countries changed their stance from pro-murder to anti-murder, 10 country should change from anti-murder to pro-murder. Otherwise relativism cannot persevere.

What are you arguing, that having a "personal opinion" about the morality of capital punishment is the same as differentiating red from blue?

Yes. Assume an empirical view-point.

This color is an observable experience. You can describe the experience/situation as "red" and I can describe it as "blue".
Capital punishment is an observed experience. You can describe the experience/situation as "moral" and I describe it as "immoral"

In so far as describing our experienes in language - there are no preferential denotations. Any linguistic term can denote any experience.

We could even use the term "delicious" to describe the experience of "eating mud".

How we prove things relating to color revolves around the science of color. So, where is the scientific equivalent of proving whether capital punishment is either moral or immoral?

You are mistaken. Science doesn't prove anything. Science constructs quantifiable models of the world which account for our experiences and help us understand cause-effect and make predictions.

Science makes no proclamation on whether this is red; or this is red.

It's the difference between establishing that the colors in the American flag are red, white and blue, and establishing whether it is moral or immoral to use the American flag as a diaper.

Sure. You can describe it either way! There are no preferential descriptions.

You can describe it as red, white and blue.
I can describe it as a diaper.

You are a relativist. You should accept that without any objection.

"Reality" being what any particular "society" deems the most rational/virtuous policies to be given the historical and cultural and experiential context being considered.

No. Reality being reality. No historical or cultural context determined that SARS CoV-2 will cause acute respiratory syndrome; and possibly death; to millions of people. That's just how this particular virus interacts with human physiology. Unles you want to contend that history determines physiology.

I merely note that once you get down to individuals, personal experiences can be especially "vast and varied". I then root individual value judgments here as I do in the OP of this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Oh yeah? Do you have an example of any individuals who don't consider acute respiratory syndrome as harmful? Maybe they do it recreationally on weekends?

I am not arguing that you are "wrong"...or wrong. I am suggesting only that, as with me, your own value judgments in regard to capital punishment are rooted existentially in the life that you lived.

Not only. It's also rooted in my reading of history. It's rooted in my observation that despite cultural and historical difference, there are also trends in moral predispositions which span beyond cultures and historical periods.

How is it that the Code of Hammurabi captures ideas such as "justice", "responsibility" and "accountability" in a culture so distant (in space and time) from my own?

And not on any capacity on your part to provide us with an argument that does establish the existence of an objective morality here. Unless of course what you construe objective morality to be as that which is encompassed in "historical trends".

You still don't see the irony in your continued demand for "arguments". That practice/tradition is just your own value-judgment rooted expstentially in the life that you've lived and the culture which you've experienced.

I come from a very different tradition to yours. It's much easier to just race two horses and figure out the winner than to argue about it all day long.

Well, lynching someone certainly does involve the laws of physics. No doubt about an objective reality there. But the morality of it...? Suppose the "collectively agreed upon standards" of any given community embrace lynching as moral?

Jurisprudence is a starting point. But the letter of the law and the spirit of the law always seem to diverge.

That is why the letter of the law needs continuous revision.

On the contrary, I assume that we don't. But I also assume that there is no way in which I can demonstrate this. So -- click -- I exchange posts with other here given the assumption that we do.

Then your double is even more confusing. If humans don't have free will then the harm we cause to each other is no different than the harm COVID causes to us. No choice. No intent. No malice.

Humans do what they do.
Viruses do what they do.

All the less reason to blame or hate them for it.

No, what is natural is that human beings come into the world genetically hard-wired to commit murder...to kill others. But given that the overwhelming preponderance of us don't commit murder or kill others, there's the nurture factor. And it is the nurturing factor that includes the part about morality. Embedded in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

So what about the genealogy of your nurturers. Who nurtured them not to murder. And who nurtured their nurturers?

Nurturing itself is part of nature and therefore natural!

You sure seem to be pointing out that both murder and non-murder are natural. And you also seem to be pointing out that nurturing non-murder is far more prevalent. Which is what I have been telling you all along.

In other words, I refuse to agree with your point again.

Don't worry about agreeing or disagreeing with me. You have taken some significant steps towards disagreeing with yourself.

Which is a good thing.

After all, since you construe yourself to be a moral objectivist, you will divide the world up between "one of us" [the rational and righteous few] and "one of them" [the irrational and unrighteous many].

No, I won't. I am perfectly capable of pointing out that there are no bad people, there are just people who make bad choices.

Back again to historical trends. Trends that happen to coincide with your own moral dogmas.

My own dogmas, or the dogmas of all mankind across history?

Surely as a moral relativist you should be just a little surprised that the opposing dogma - the pro-murder dogma is lacking representation.

Therefore "proof" that capital punishment is inherently/necessarily immoral. So, what are the historical trends in regard to "abortion, homosexuality, gay wedding.

Abortion is now a safe and elective medical procedure meaning pregnant mothers no longer die in back alley abortion clinics - reduction of harm to humans. Moral.

Homosexuality never caused any harm to begin with. The harm was in the social ostracism and mistreatment of homosexuals. Tolerance has increased - harm has decreased. Moral.

So, that we can all know precisely what we are morally and politically -- and spiritually? -- obligated to think about them too.

Who is talking about obligations here? Just because all of mankind throughout history has deemed murder immoral it doesn't mean you are obliged to be moral. Go and murder whoever you want.

That's how free will works. Of course, there will be consequences.

[Age]

And, how could a sound AND valid 'argument' NOT establish ANY 'thing' AT ALL?

How could it establish anything?

Because to me 'it' is IRREFUTABLE.

Who says I have to accept/agree with a "sound" and "valid" argument?

But absolutely NO one is saying here that you HAVE TO accept or agree with a sound and valid argument at all.

Were you ASSUMING someone was saying that you HAVE TO accept/agree with a sound and valid argument?

If yes, then WHY?

In fact you are absolutely FREE to not accept, not agree with, and/or 'dispute' absolutely ANY 'thing' you like, but, to me, OBVIOUSLY you could NEVER 'refute' a sound and valid argument.

By the way what does a 'sound and valid argument' even mean, or refer to, to you?

A true relativist should have no problem understanding this.

But there is NO so-called "true relativist". To me, these are just words, names, or labels that some of 'you', human beings', place on "yourselves".

Your cultural and historical upbringing has indoctrinated you into accepting "sound and valid arguments". Mine hasn't.

Okay, if that is what you say and BELIEVE is true, then that is PERFECTLY fine with me.

But does just what you say and/or BELIEVE is true MAKE 'it' true?

And, what has your cultural upbringing INDOCTRINATED you into 'accepting'.

Also, are 'you' NOT ABLE TO think NOR see 'things' for and by "yourself"?

Are you ABLE TO, or are you NOT ABLE TO, 'accept' things WITHOUT be INDOCTRINATED into 'accepting' them?

If you are going to reject one social norm - reject them all.

WHY are you ALREADY ASSUMING here that I could be rejecting some so-called "social norm" ALREADY?

I do NOT even KNOW what this so-called "one social norm" is that you are going on about here, which you say and CLAIM I could be 'rejecting' ALREADY.

I suggest you just concentrate on ONLY the ACTUAL WORDS that i have used and said, which you quoted, and are replying to here.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN I just asked and posed the question, to you;
How could a sound AND valid 'argument' NOT establish ANY 'thing' AT ALL?

AFTER you made the CLAIM that:
"Arguments do NOT establish absolutely ANY thing."

You MADE THE CLAIM. Are you NOW ABLE TO back up and support this CLAIM?

If yes, then HOW?

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Please do NOT 'try to' TWIST this around by MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, and/or asking me questions, that I have NEVER even IMAGINED let alone thought about.

Just EXPLAIN HOW 'arguments do NOT establish absolutely ANY thing'.

I suggest that you first 'define' what an 'argument' is to you, and then begin from there. But PLEASE feel absolutely FREE to do absolutely ANY thing that you would like to do, and in absolutely ANY way that you would like to do them.

[Age]

And, how could a sound AND valid 'argument' NOT establish ANY 'thing' AT ALL?

How could it establish anything? Who says I have to accept/agree with a "sound" and "valid" argument?

A true relativist should have no problem understanding this. Your cultural and historical upbringing has indoctrinated you into accepting "sound and valid arguments". Mine hasn't.

If you are going to reject one social norm - reject them all.

Quite right! Nothing is true or right because it is socially accepted or most people believe it.

VERY, VERY, True.

What MAKES some 'thing' True or Right is NOT because 'it' is socially accepted or most people believe 'it'.

Every individual has their own mind and must use it to discover what is true.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ONCE AGAIN, you use the 'mind' word. And, ONCE AGAIN, I will ask you;
What is this 'mind' 'thing', EXACTLY, which you speak of here?

And, going by EVERY OTHER TIME I have asked and posed this question, to 'you', posters, here we WILL receive NO answer AT ALL.

We WILL just WAIT to SEE what happens THIS TIME.

If you want to CLAIM that absolutely EVERY one has "their" OWN 'mind', then this could imply or infer that 'you' ACTUALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking about here.

So, again, we WILL just WAIT to SEE what happens NOW.

Learn from others, sure, so long as it is one's own reasoning that brings them to agree with it and not some dependence on some, "social norm."

LOL How could it be ANY OTHER WAY than one's OWN 'reasoning' that 'brings one to agree'?

LOGICALLY, and by definition, one could NOT 'agree' on some 'thing' if 'agreeing' was going AGAINST 'one's own reasoning'. Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' could SHOW and PROVE otherwise.

By the way, do you 'reject' ALL so-called "social norms"?

Because if you do, I wonder if the one known as "skepdick" 'rejects' ALL so-called "social norms" or 'accepts' one or some of "them".

[Age]

In the USA 1500 people have died due to capital punishment since 1976.

2500 people died of COVID yesterday.

Why is your moral outrage so obsessed with capital punishment, but not on COVID?

I am NOT speaking for that 'one' you posed this question to, but just to state the OBVIOUS; One is PREVENTABLE the other is NOT.

And, hopefully, I do NOT have to EXPLAIN which one is which.

[Age]

You are again [in my opinion] avoiding my suggestion that you frame your argument above in regard to the issue of capital punishment.

I am indeed! I am doing it consciously. Precisely because framing "morality" as something humans do to other humans misses the forrest for the trees.

When I frame morality as the wellbeing of humans, then anything which unnecessarily undermines our wellbeing is immoral.

Well that is ONE WAY to LOOK AT and SEE 'morality', itself.

And HERE is a GREAT EXAMPLE of WHY adult human beings where SO LOST and CONFUSED hitherto when they were LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING 'things' with each other hither to when this was being written. That is; SOME spoke of 'morality' at ONLY being what human beings do to "themselves" ONLY, SOME spoke of what human beings do to "themselves" and/or to "other things", while SOME spoke about the "well being to themselves" ONLY, and there are probably SOME who speak of OTHER 'things' AS WELL.

See, what MOST adult human beings had been doing for millennia in those days up to when this was being written was; They would speak OF 'things' but NEVER come to an agreement and acceptance of what the 'things' were, EXACTLY, BEFORE they would even BEGIN discussing 'them', whatever 'them' was, EXACTLY. This is what led to CONFUSION, which is what then caused those human beings to bicker, argue, quarrel, fight, and EVEN to kill each other, back in those OLDEN DAYS.

They had NOT YET REALIZED that by just, literally, 'coming TOGETHER peacefully' to just agree upon and accept the definitions of the words, which there WERE GOING to use in discussion, FIRST, is what CAUSES absolute and True peace AND harmony for ALL, involved.

But like ALL past human beings have PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, there were NOT to KNOW better.

[iambiguous]

You are again [in my opinion] avoiding my suggestion that you frame your argument above in regard to the issue of capital punishment.

I am indeed! I am doing it consciously. Precisely because framing "morality" as something humans do to other humans misses the forrest for the trees.

When I frame morality as the wellbeing of humans, then anything which unnecessarily undermines our wellbeing is immoral.

Then we are likely in two completely different discussions.

Presuming human autonomy of course.

There is the "wellbeing of humans" encompassed in an intellectual/philosophical assessment, and there is taking that assessment out into world of "conflicting goods".

My own rendition of William Barrett's "rival goods":

William Barrett from Irrational Man:

For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us.

I merely presume further that in a No God world, good and evil themselves are just subjective concoctions rooted existentially in dasein...both historically and culturally. And in terms of our own unique set of "personal experiences"

Capital punishment being but one of these issues that has plagued our species now for centuries.

Basically, from my frame of mind, you want to pin your hopes for morality on historical trends. Then the part where there's what you believe most contributes to our "well-being" in regard to any particular set of conflicting goods and how you connect that "in your head" to humans living "longer, happier, healthier, wealthier, better educated, more fulfilled lives."

...moral arguments unfold out in particular worlds [experienced historically, culturally and individually] understood in particular ways. Contingency, chance and change are everywhere in human interactions. Morality in and of itself isn't to blame because morality is only the recognition that when human beings interact there are always going to be conflicting wants and needs. So, "rules of behavior" need to be established in order to reward some behaviors while punishing others. The "human condition" in a nutshell.

So then we agree on the mechanisms of manifesting morality!

Yes, but those all up and down the moral and political spectrum are the embodiment of the "mechanisms". It's my argument regarding dasein that brings them to one set of assumptions rather than another.

But...

But the moral objectivists among us insist that morality must revolve around their own set of assumptions. Their own conclusions regarding which behaviors will be rewarded or punished. "One of us" vs. "one of them".

Whereas in regard to things like the death penalty both sides can articulate reasonable arguments. Those in favor of it can argue that someone who kills a loved one caused them great pain and suffering and ought to be killed in turn. But then the friends and family and loved ones of the person about to be executed experience great pain and suffering when the state murders him or her. And murder is often how they see it. But state executions are not murder because they are within the law.

But the moral subjectivist do the exact same thing. And so do the relativists. And the nihilists. Everybody does it. That's neither interesting nor relevant to anything.

Come on, the subjectivists/relativists/nihilists are not arguing that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think as they do. Quite the contrary. Some like me are "fractured and fragmented" to the point where over and again, they are drawn and quartered when confronting conflicting goods.

And I am a relativist in regard to "reasonableness of arguments" --- whether pertaining to capital punishment or to covid vaccinations. Both sides are able to raise legitimate points. To note reasonable concerns.

Then what? Point to "trends"? Collect your own set of statistics? Champion your own moral and political prejudices? Simply dismiss the arguments I make about dasein?

What are you arguing, that having a "personal opinion" about the morality of capital punishment is the same as differentiating red from blue?

Yes. Assume an empirical view-point.

This color is an observable experience. You can describe the experience/situation as "red" and I can describe it as "blue".
Capital punishment is an observed experience. You can describe the experience/situation as "moral" and I describe it as "immoral"

In so far as describing our experienes in language - there are no preferential denotations. Any linguistic term can denote any experience.

We could even use the term "delicious" to describe the experience of "eating mud".

We are clearly going to have to "agree to disagree" about this. Your point here is in some respects nothing short of nonsensical to me.

Unless of course others here might be willing to explain it to me more intelligibly.

In other words, to me...

How we prove things relating to color revolves around the science of color. So, where is the scientific equivalent of proving whether capital punishment is either moral or immoral?

You are mistaken. Science doesn't prove anything. Science constructs quantifiable models of the world which account for our experiences and help us understand cause-effect and make predictions.

Science makes no proclamation on whether this is red; or this is red.

Google the "science of color" and you get this: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+sci ... nt=gws-wiz

Google the "morality of capital punishment" and you get this: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+mor ... nt=gws-wiz

You tell me where the communicate gaps are likely to be the largest. Where assessments are more or less likely to revolve around the manner in which I construe value judgments as rooted existentially in dasein.

It's the difference between establishing that the colors in the American flag are red, white and blue, and establishing whether it is moral or immoral to use the American flag as a diaper.

Sure. You can describe it either way! There are no preferential descriptions.

You can describe it as red, white and blue.
I can describe it as a diaper.

You are a relativist. You should accept that without any objection.

Again, as though describing the American flag as "red white and blue" or "blue white and red", is the same as describing capital punishment as "moral" or "immoral."




I think I'll stop here.

I suspect that the gap between how we think about these things is simply too big to imagine any communication breakthroughs between us.

[Skepdick]

There is the "wellbeing of humans" encompassed in an intellectual/philosophical assessment, and there is taking that assessment out into world of "conflicting goods".

I merely presume further that in a No God world, good and evil themselves are just subjective concoctions rooted existentially in dasein...both historically and culturally. And in terms of our own unique set of "personal experiences"

Capital punishment being but one of these issues that has plagued our species now for centuries.

Which is no different to describing this experience as as "red", "blue" or "green". Or even "good" or "bad".

Or describing the experience of capital punishment as "good" AND "bad"
Or describing the experience of murder as "good" AND "bad".

If you are a true relativist, rooting everything in dasein and historical trends then you should have absolutely no problem with my view-point.
There are NO preferential descriptions.
There are NO preferential arguments.
There are NO preferential philosophies.
There are NO preferential choices.


There are NO STANDARDS for disrcimination for or against anything.
There is no way to determine anything. Non-determination IS the epitome of relativism. You say X - I say not X.

It's so strange that you would disagree with me practicing your view-point to its logical maximum.

Basically, from my frame of mind, you want to pin your hopes for morality on historical trends.

No, I don't. I am pointing out that the historical trends being observed are a product of morality. And the phenomenon we call "morality" is objective.

If relativism was true then I can't possibly explain any of the historical trends being observed.

Why would we have less murder? Why can't it just remain the same; or more?
Why would we have less poverty? Why can't it just remain the same or more?
Why do we live longer? Why can't it just remain the same or become shorter?

How does a moral relativist account for these favourable changes?

Then the part where there's what you believe most contributes to our "well-being" in regard to any particular set of conflicting goods and how you connect that "in your head" to humans living "longer, happier, healthier, wealthier, better educated, more fulfilled lives."

Yes. Lets take one very particular "conflicting good".

In a truly relativist world-view some people would argue that living longer lives is better; and some would argue that living shorter lives is better.
And if those view-points were in perfect, relative balance then one would expect to observe no measurable change in human longevity.

So how does a relativist account for the fact that human longevity has almost doubled in 200 years?

How does a relativist account for the all of the improvement in happiness, wealth, education and general human well-being etc.?

Yes, but those all up and down the moral and political spectrum are the embodiment of the "mechanisms". It's my argument regarding dasein that brings them to one set of assumptions rather than another.

But then how do you explain and account for the continued and persisting improvement in the quality of human life?!?

Come on, the subjectivists/relativists/nihilists are not arguing that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think as they do. Quite the contrary. Some like me are "fractured and fragmented" to the point where over and again, they are drawn and quartered when confronting conflicting goods.

And I am a relativist in regard to "reasonableness of arguments" --- whether pertaining to capital punishment or to covid vaccinations. Both sides are able to raise legitimate points. To note reasonable concerns.

But you weren't drawn and quartered when you accepted the subjectivists/relativists/nihilists argument.
And you weren't drawn and quartered when you rejected the objective moral argument

Surely a true relativist would be drawn and quartered between these two view-points also ?!?!

And yet you've decided. How?

Then what? Point to "trends"? Collect your own set of statistics? Champion your own moral and political prejudices? Simply dismiss the arguments I make about dasein?

I can dismiss trivially on grounds of relativism. You've made it the argument about dasein. Relative to you - I reject it.

Why? because you claim relativism is true. I agree with you. I am relativising your argument and dismissing it.

We are clearly going to have to "agree to disagree" about this. Your point here is in some respects nothing short of nonsensical to me.

Yes! That is what I am doing! Your view-point is that agreement is not possible on moral issue, but if you are a true relativist then you should believe that agreement is not possible. About ANYTHING. Full stop!

Unless of course others here might be willing to explain it to me more intelligibly.

In other words, to me...

Why is it non-sensical? You are the one arguing for relativism. Surely, as a relativist, you understand the logical implications of your own position?

A true relativist believes that agreement is not possible. About ANYTHING. Full stop!

Relative to you this is red.
Relative to me this is red.

Why aren't you "drawn and quartered" about which red is the true red?

Google the "science of color" and you get this

And now you have arrived at an appeal to authority. I don't care about which science you deem authoritative on the matter.

Be a true relativist! Invent your own science.

You tell me where the communicate gaps are likely to be the largest. Where assessments are more or less likely to revolve around the manner in which I construe value judgments as rooted existentially in dasein.

The communcation gaps are the largest in your selective relativism. You are only a relativist in argument. But you aren't a relativist in practice.

As evidenced by your "sudden confusion" of my going full relativist on you.

Again, as though describing the American flag as "red white and blue" or "blue white and red", is the same as describing capital punishment as "moral" or "immoral."

It is exactly the same thing.

I can describe murder as moral.
You can describe murder as immoral.

That is true relativism. NO PREFERENTIAL DISTINCTIONS.

I suspect that the gap between how we think about these things is simply too big to imagine any communication breakthroughs between us.

I have closed the gaps. I have accepted your position (relativism) and applied it even better (in practice) than you did.

I relativised your relativism. And that somehow broke down communication between us.

Which tells me that you aren't a true relativist. Only somebody pretending to be a relativist. Pretending poorly at that.