That's unethical

Step aside, brainlets.

Guilty pleasure desu. His opinions are shit though.

Relativism is an 'objective' morality. When people say "that's immoral" they don't pronounce the asterisk at the end

>Relativism is an 'objective' morality
No it's not. This pseudo deep "non-x is a form of x" needs to fucking stop.
It's literally a dildo for fence sitters.

Yes it is, in the way OP meant it since we've never actually had an objective morality on account of its impossibility. I say 'objective' because it's a well-established framework within which all other 'relativistic' moralities function, but still interferes when it senses that one such relativism is a threat to itself. That's as 'objective' as any other 'objective' morality of the past, in that it is based on historical development and reason.

Simple. You accept that there is an objective ethical-morality. You accept that there is such a thing as the objective truth, which includes the subjective.

Objective and universal aren't synonyms.
The discussion about objective morality has zero to do with how much accepted these morals are or are not.

Relativism is not a morality. I bet you everything there are several relativists with vastly different moralities itt RIGHT NOW. You can't just switch the meaning of words in a debate and then say everybody else is wrong

People think objective morality means independent of subjects, but that's wrong. Objective morality means "as agreed upon by subjects".
So in practice law is objective morality.

watch Shelly Kagan's bits. Only person I've ever seen who made WLC look like a retard
youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

>People think it means what it says but actually it means the opposite
Law isn't any form of morality objective or subjective. It is in parts based on morality but it's not morality nor does it claim to be one.

Morality independent of subjects is a nonsensical concept.

You're the one switching the meaning of words. Read OP again:
>shared, objective morality

We do have a shared ('objective') morality that permits relativism as long as it doesn't interfere with that shared morality, which is where we draw the line at 'right' and 'wrong'

Try asking someone why killing someone is actually morally wrong and they'll always have to take a moment before giving a competent answer

This. You can only be objective within an existing framework, and in that sense there can absolutely be objective standards for right/wrong, either at the individual level or at the group level.

>objective standards at the individual level
Please stop posting

you'd think it's a moral relativism but it's really on line with bourgeois morals, nothing really radical happening there, it's just an assimilation/acceptance dialectic into the middle class. but of course married gays sharing a political space with him would be subversive to a WASP, and similar stories vice versa.

Not until you provide a meaningful counterargument.

Many people will condone murder if it's for the right reasons

I belive in a version of emotivism, the view that there's no such thing as moral facts or moral propositions: when people claim to be making a moral assertion they are, in fact, they booing or cheering for something based on a purely psychological, emotional reaction.

You didn't give an argument. And objective means independent from the subject.

Read fucking Nietzsche

Just because society is stupid doesn't mean you have to be

People get caught up in these nonsensical problems too much. Another popular one is "free will".
Just because you can put together some words in a sequence doesn't make them a real thing.

Objective morality as in morality independent of subjects is nonsense.

Chomsky. Then again.

No it doesn't. It means that it is dependent on fact over emotion/feeling, which in turn (barring issues of what constitutes epistemological fact) means that it is measurable, repeatable, and exists within some framework of definition (2 + 2 = 4 exists by knowing what 2, 4, +, and = mean). This can be done either a priori or post priori.

An individual can still judge and be judged within that framework.

>I did neither read nor understand the question of OP but I think it's vaguely related to Nietzsche so I'll pretend I read him

Your definition entirely agrees with me not with you.
And "exists within some framework of definition" is not part of the definition of objective. In fact the way you define it leaves no distinction between objective and subjective if you define subjectivity as "the objectvity within the framework of the individual"
There's a reason noone else except you uses that definition. And no 2+2=4 is not dependent on a framework of definition. Our definition of + 2 = etc. are descriptions of that objective fact. The fact exists outside of our framework and was true long before humans.

do you live in the vatican?

they're not
protip: it's all about power. anyone trying to convince you otherwise is blowing smoke.

Is suicide the only moral act? Giving up literally all your power if you determine your death helps others?

...

>And no 2+2=4 is not dependent on a framework of definition. Our definition of + 2 = etc. are descriptions of that objective fact. The fact exists outside of our framework and was true long before humans.
"2+2=4" is a human invention. "It was true long before humans" is too.

>"2+2=4" is a human invention. "It was true long before humans" is too.
descriptions of that objective fact. The fact exists outside of our framework and was true long before humans.
There is a reason I posted that and I feel you ignore it on purpose

> And "exists within some framework of definition" is not part of the definition of objective.
Yes it is. See below.
> In fact the way you define it leaves no distinction between objective and subjective if you define subjectivity as "the objectvity within the framework of the individual"
Your very example shows the difference is that subjectivity is dependent on the definition of objectivity, and thus subjectivity is a subset of a larger objective body from which we can measure/judge/etc.
> There's a reason no one else except you uses that definition.
"That is, our own sense data are shaped and structured by a theoretical framework, and may be fundamentally distinct from the sense data of scientists working in another one."
plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
> And no 2+2=4 is not dependent on a framework of definition. Our definition of + 2 = etc. are descriptions of that objective fact. The fact exists outside of our framework and was true long before humans.
False. Mathematics is a human-created language and can only coexist with humans. It is a tool for explaining the universe, it is not the universe itself.

>It is a tool for explaining the universe, it is not the universe itself
And the thing is independent of humans. If another life form would add two and two they'd get four regardless of whether they use the same words as we.

>plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
Alright now I see where you're coming from. As far as I can tell we agree.
To go with the example in the link:
Whether the sun "sets" or just gets visible is independent of how scientists describe it.

>It is a tool for explaining the universe, it is not the universe itself.
Precisely what I said

No, it's just first-rate stupidity given that the purpose of life is gene survival.

>given that the purpose of life is gene survival
You wut?

mathmatics doesn't exist outside of human concioussness

itt: people can't difer between objectivity and neutrality

OBJECTIVE truth is true regardless of any subject's biases, feelings, etc. one molecule of water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen: that's verifiable and true whether you like it or not

>We
Wrong

>They have to think before they talk
is that a criticism now?