Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

Moral Relativism or Ethical Relativism is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist for short.

Descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this.
Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1]
Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when large disagreements about morality exist.
https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH2f

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

In other words, moral relativists do not have a moral compass.

As such, moral relativists has no moral-say [sense of objective moral good] with the 10/7 genocides, other genocides or any acts of evil.

The only recourse moral relativists can resort to is the laws of the land which is non-moral, i.e. political, legislature, judicial, or by force their way to whatever their views are.

On the other hand, the moral realists [there are objective moral facts] has a moral-say or moral stance that genocides and all other evil acts are not morally permissible.
This can then be transposed to the legal view, i.e. genocides and all evil acts are illegal.

What defense can moral relativists counter to the above charges?

Views??
Discuss??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Moral Relativists reject moral realism based on their illusory definition of 'what is realism' and 'what is objectivity' grounded on 'absolute mind-independence'.

There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The two senses are;
1. FSRK sense which is human-based - a collective-of-human-subjects
2. Philosophical Realist Sense re absolute mind independence.

Sense 2 is illusory, fiction and meaningless while sense 1 is realistic and objective.

My moral realism is based on sense 1 i.e. human-based moral FSRK.

[Atla]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

That's usually what someone who never had a moral compass would say.

[Iwannaplato]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

So, VA, starts his thread with a insulting generalization (no, universalization) about moral relativists. And one that adds no information or substance to a discusion of antirealism/realism.
This is how he begins a discussion.
When, in fact, one could believe that there is no objective reality, BUT abhor genocide and fight against it. Just as people put incredible amounts of energy into non-moral causes based on their desires and preferences.

But it's other people that insult VA first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

So, VA, starts his thread with a insulting generalization (no, universalization) about moral relativists. And one that adds no information or substance to a discusion of antirealism/realism.
This is how he begins a discussion.
When, in fact, one could believe that there is no objective reality, BUT abhor genocide and fight against it. Just as people put incredible amounts of energy into non-moral causes based on their desires and preferences.

But it's other people that insult VA first.

I had stated many times already, why I am in harsh mode is due to what had been brewing from the insults that was initiated from p-realists long ago and the tit-for-tat from me that followed. It is unlikely I will stop the tit-for-tat given the present circumstances.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not even picking the milder condescensions on the order of: you need to think more deeply or you are stuck in an evolutionary default And just looking at recents thread starts by you I can find all sorts of opening salvos aimed at anyone who might disagree with you. That is insults that do not add substance.

I know, I know. You'll never admit this.

It's ok. It's hard for some people.

[Atla]

I had stated many times already, why I am in harsh mode is due to what had been brewing from the insults that was initiated from p-realists long ago and the tit-for-tat from me that followed. It is unlikely I will stop the tit-for-tat given the present circumstances.

And it never occured to you that those initial insults were already a reaction to your inappropriate behaviour and near-total philosophical cluelessness?

[Iwannaplato]

I had stated many times already, why I am in harsh mode is due to what had been brewing from the insults that was initiated from p-realists long ago and the tit-for-tat from me that followed. It is unlikely I will stop the tit-for-tat given the present circumstances.

Notice how you, as usual, did not interact with my point. You simply restated your lie without dealing with my evidence that you are lying.

It's not tit for tat if you open a new discussion thread and aim a generalization at everyone who has a different opinions from yours.
When you said you only responded to others, you lied.
You start threads and aim insults at ANYONE WITH A PARTICULAR PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION.

If this is too hard for you to understand...this would include new people coming to the forum who disagree with you about objective moral facts or realism, etc.

It would include people already here who have not insulted you. Or who only tit-for-tatted you.

You start with condescension, on your own. Notice the thread where you did this with bahman. And all these threads where I find you doing this...they are just on the first page of threads of posted in or new posts.

[FlashDangerpants]

Has he not worked out that his morality-proper is relative to choices made when selecting these FSK model things? Is VA still unaware that he is a moral relativist?

[Harbal]

I had stated many times already, why I am in harsh mode is due to what had been brewing from the insults that was initiated from p-realists long ago and the tit-for-tat from me that followed. It is unlikely I will stop the tit-for-tat given the present circumstances.

Notice how you, as usual, did not interact with my point. You simply restated your lie without dealing with my evidence that you are lying.

It's not tit for tat if you open a new discussion thread and aim a generalization at everyone who has a different opinions from yours.
When you said you only responded to others, you lied.
You start threads and aim insults at ANYONE WITH A PARTICULAR PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION.

If this is too hard for you to understand...this would include new people coming to the forum who disagree with you about objective moral facts or realism, etc.

It would include people already here who have not insulted you. Or who only tit-for-tatted you.

You start with condescension, on your own. Notice the thread where you did this with bahman. And all these threads where I find you doing this...they are just on the first page of threads of posted in or new posts.

I used to insult him until he put me on ignore. I carried on insulting him for a while, but I eventually got fed up with throwing tat at him and getting no tit in return. Now I have to make do with just watching him behave like a tit.

[iambiguous]

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides

You tell me: How many of the genocides here were started by moral relativists?

In fact, down through the ages, genocides were carried out, by and large, not by the moral relativists but by the moral objectivists. Think the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Pol Pots. Think the fanatical Islamists and Jews in the Middle East conflicts.

[Iwannaplato]

I used to insult him until he put me on ignore. I carried on insulting him for a while, but I eventually got fed up with throwing tat at him and getting no tit in return. Now I have to make do with just watching him behave like a tit.

One funny thing is that while he certainly knows sometimes he is being insulting, at other times I think he's utterly clueless he's doing it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's not tit for tat if you open a new discussion thread and aim a generalization at everyone who has a different opinions from yours.
When you said you only responded to others, you lied.
You start threads and aim insults at ANYONE WITH A PARTICULAR PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION.

What is it so insulting about the OP.
I am stating a fact and explained it in the OP.

Instead of bitching, why don't you throw in a counter argument?
In any case, I do not see you are capable of presenting a valid argument to the point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is very unfortunate there is no decent philosophical response to the OP.

Note again,
In this OP I did not claim moral relativists [see Wiki definition above] commit genocides, I wrote;

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

As such, moral relativists has no moral-say [sense of objective moral good] with the 10/7 genocides, other genocides or any acts of evil. Moral relativists cannot condemn or by definition they do not condemn genocides and other evil acts from the moral perspective.

The only recourse moral relativists can resort to is the laws of the land which is non-moral, i.e. political, legislature, judicial, or by force their way to whatever their views are.

[iambiguous]

It's not tit for tat if you open a new discussion thread and aim a generalization at everyone who has a different opinions from yours.
When you said you only responded to others, you lied.
You start threads and aim insults at ANYONE WITH A PARTICULAR PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION.

What is it so insulting about the OP.
I am stating a fact and explained it in the OP.

Instead of bitching, why don't you throw in a counter argument?
In any case, I do not see you are capable of presenting a valid argument to the point.

Arguments indeed. That way we can entirely avoid the actual history of genocide encompassed here:

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides

You tell me: How many of the genocides here were started by moral relativists?

In fact, down through the ages, genocides were carried out, by and large, not by the moral relativists but by the moral objectivists. Think the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Pol Pots. Think the fanatical Islamists and Jews in the Middle East conflicts.