@Krumple,
Krumple;156050 wrote: But this does happen and has happened. There are so many examples I can give to show that a culture acceptance or moral values does endorse intolerance.
Just like Hitler's, Stalin, and Mao's Cultural Moral Relativism breeds intolerance? Any moral system can breed intolerance. The question is, what do you do when it does? If cultural Moral Relativism is true, you're sh*t out of luck. It is
relativism that fosters intolerance. Why not be intolerant? You have no answer to this. Because tolerance feels better? Or because it is the popular consensus? Well suppose it no longer feels better. Suppose it ceases to be popular. The relativist can appeal to no moral law as a dam against the flood of intolerance. We desperately need such a bulwark, because societies, like individuals, are fickle and fallen. What else will deter a humane and humanistic Germany from turning to an inhumane, Nazi philosophy of racial superiority? Or, a now-tolerant America from turning to a future intolerance against any group it decides to ignore the rights of? It is unborn babies today, born babies tomorrow. Homophobes today, perhaps homosexuals tomorrow.
Krumple;156050 wrote: What you seem to be thinking is just because you do not agree with intolerance, you want to reject moral subjectivity.
huh? You seem to think that just because you agree with tolerance as a moral value, that you should be adopting moral subjectivity. But this backfires on you. If relativism is true, then there is no reason that anyone SHOULD be tolerant, since no inter-cultural objective truth exists.
Krumple;156050 wrote: It's weird because you even state the case for what we actually observe happening and has happened and call that no evidence for moral subjectivity.
Just because people disagree on who is president of the united states does not entail there is no objective fact of the matter about who, in fact, is president of the united states. People can be mistaken about a lot of things. What does lack of consensus prove other than that people can be wrong? Lack of consensus no more provides evidence for subjectivism than objectivism. Get a clue.
Krumple;156050 wrote: You always have a case. The case is built upon your subjective moral value. If you believe what he is doing it is wrong, then by all means you can hold him accountable for being wrong.
On what grounds? Objective ones? Then Cultural Moral Relativism is false. You have no appeal to any objective moral principles outside your culture if Cultural Moral Relativism is true. If Hitler believes the genocide of 6 million Jews is good, then Hitler is right, and you are wrong to think otherwise. It also says, that if you think the extermination of 6 million Jews is wrong, then you are right, and Hitler is wrong to think otherwise. So, the extermination of 6 million Jews in right in one culture, and wrong in another. What inter-culture case do you have? The answer is "none."
Krumple;156050 wrote: Actually this is a huge lie. It is insistent moral objectivity which causes intolerance. Because if you are laying down what is right then only those things will be considered right. So tell me if there is moral objectivity, is being a homosexual, right or wrong?
Just like the Cultural Moral Relativism of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao?
Krumple;156050 wrote:As I mentioned previously. You can hold anyone up to your subjective moral value if you hold the position of support for your moral system. It does not prevent you from exercising your moral values upon anyone else. Just like you are already doing with this whole argument you are making. You are insisting that anyone who makes the claim that moral values are subjective and are not objective truths, are wrong.
huh? You are just assuming no objective moral truths exist. I am not claiming anything other than the fact that your argument is invalid, unsupported, and confused about what moral subjectivity and objectivity are.
Quote: So tell me;
is prostitution wrong?
is drug use wrong?
is being homosexual wrong?
You might think I am asking rhetorical questions here. But honestly if you are making the claim that moral values are objective truths. Then by all means you will have to provide for me what are the right moral values. Because I can not determine what moral values are right.
Then your cultural moral relativism is in no better shape than moral absolutism.
Just because it is difficult to determine what the objective moral facts of a given case are, does not entail there is no objective moral fact of the matter at all.
If people don't know whether the earth is round or flat, does that entail there is no fact of the matter about the earth? No. So why would you think this about moral judgments too? Again, you have no case.