The idiocy of leftist judges...

[CivilDiscourse]

Stupid is it now! What I don't understand is where EXACTLY did I straw man you. Perhaps you can spell it out.

Every time you ask "Logically show that X is worse than Y" or "Logically show that X is wrong"

It shows that either you don't understand, or you are acting in bad faith.

Since you so boldly declared that "Most of us understand this", one can only deduce that you are essentially practicing dishonesty by debating in bad faith.

[seer]

Every time you ask "Logically show that X is worse than Y" or "Logically show that X is wrong"

It shows that either you don't understand, or you are acting in bad faith.

Since you so boldly declared that "Most of us understand this", one can only deduce that you are essentially practicing dishonesty by debating in bad faith.

The logic thing was to highlight that there are no right moral answers with relativism, only preferences. Which you agreed with. So I'm not getting your objection.

[Diogenes]

The statement "murder is not actually wrong" is at least ambiguous, and could be interpreted to mean that I think murder is not wrong, surprisingly. That ambiguity is not present with the statement "murder is not objectively wrong".

adverb: actually

1. as the truth or facts of a situation; really.
   "we must pay attention to what young people are actually doing"
2. used to emphasize that something someone has said or done is surprising.
   "he actually expected me to be pleased about it!"

The fun thing about humans is that context is usually available to determine the intention of the speaker, especially when the two individuals share a native language. If you want to avoid the obvious, that's fine. The latter of your example is obviously hyperbolic whereas the current topic and context would give the prior menacing.

[Stoic]

The fun thing about humans is that context is usually available to determine the intention of the speaker, especially when the two individuals share a native language. If you want to avoid the obvious, that's fine. The latter of your example is obviously hyperbolic whereas the current topic and context would give the prior menacing.

I want to avoid what I say now being used out of context later.

[Stoic]

What exactly is a relative truth-value for a moral statement? What does that even mean?

From the same source:

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking.

[seer]

From the same source:

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking.

But that is not Moral Realism at it, it is just another form relativism. You could say that a culture believes that Polygamy is morally wrong. It is a fact that they believe it. But that is nothing like what moral realists mean when they say that there are moral facts. That those facts remain true regardless what a culture believes or not. If Polygamy is immoral, it would be universally immoral.

[Machinist]

From the same source:

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

With respect to truth-value, this means that a moral judgment such as ‘Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another. It is not true, or false, simply speaking.

MetaEthical Moral Relativism...or MMR

...is cultural relativism.

Why the need for a fancy label?

It's the same exact thing.

[Stoic]

MetaEthical Moral Relativism...or MMR

...is cultural relativism.

Why the need for a fancy label?

It's the same exact thing.

I'm simply pointing out that it can also be considered a form of moral realism.

This is in response to seer's question:

"Why do most atheist philosophers (even our own Starlight) believe that moral realism is the case if they didn't find relativism bankrupt?"

[seer]

I'm simply pointing out that it can also be considered a form of moral realism.

This is in response to seer's question:

"Why do most atheist philosophers (even our own Starlight) believe that moral realism is the case if they didn't find relativism bankrupt?"

Do you have an breakdown on that? Of the 62.1% that accept or lean towards moral realism do any of them hold to your relative realism?

[Stoic]

Do you have an breakdown on that? Of the 62.1% that accept or lean towards moral realism do any of them hold to your relative realism?

No. I don't even have a source that says 62.1% accept or lean towards moral realism.

[CivilDiscourse]

No. I don't even have a source that says 62.1% accept or lean towards moral realism.

Maybe this:
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866

[seer]

No. I don't even have a source that says 62.1% accept or lean towards moral realism.

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,^[3] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.^[4] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents^[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).^[6] Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.

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

[Stoic]

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,^[3] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.^[4] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents^[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).^[6] Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.

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

Should we adopt their views on theism vs atheism also?

[seer]

Should we adopt their views on theism vs atheism also?

The point is that moral relativism is waning.

[Diogenes]

But that is not Moral Realism at it, it is just another form relativism. You could say that a culture believes that Polygamy is morally wrong. It is a fact that they believe it. But that is nothing like what moral realists mean when they say that there are moral facts. That those facts remain true regardless what a culture believes or not. If Polygamy is immoral, it would be universally immoral.

Not necessarily. Even Christianity accepts relative truth value for morality. For instance, the eating of pork is immoral in the context of being Jewish. It's interesting that Christians often deny absolute morality regarding God's commandments and effectively employ abrogation of the Old Testament. You may wish to look into Particularism.

Of course, the typical argument is that the dietary (and other abrogated) commands are substantially distinct from other commands.