Moral Relativism ?? Good, Bad, or ...... ?

Joe, I think you put your finger on the central problem--indeed an impasse--between you and Greyfan (and myself for that matter). I agree with Greyfan that this is a sociological (or anthropological) matter. Morality has to do with behavior. .

........ If humans did not exist, who could constitute right or wrong, and how?.........

A totally isolated person has no need of morality, not even a wholly personal one.

if we agree your foregoing statement that a belief unrelated to conduct is not a moral belief, we can resolve the paradox you got in your previous argument by regarding moral relativism as only such kind of belief. thus moral relativism can work well without being rebuked as an objective moral principle that contradicts with itself.

I read about the 'Robinson Crusoe' cases that were held together in a desolate and isolated location by their morals . It actually adds to arguments for objective morality, since there is something natural to certain moral principles, steming from within us, natural enough that helps us work better even in isolation.

If a moral system helps a totally isolated person to "work better," then his moral system is nothing more than an operating protocol .. It does not direct him to the "good" but to the "efficient" or the "productive." That's not morality.

A totally isolated individual has no duties to anyone but himself; thus, if he transgresses his own moral beliefs, his harm is self-inflicted. Nothing, therefore, compels him to refrain from immorality, since he is always free to acquiesce in his own wrongdoing. At worst, then, his bad acts may lead to a bad conscience, but in this it would be as if he had sinned in his dreams.

Relative, Before anyone is put into any isolated situation, they have been brainwashed by the environment in which he/she lived.

Again, there really should be no need to address this kind of misguided argument. I'll simply state, then, that morality cannot be divorced from society. A totally isolated person has no need of morality, not even a wholly personal one.

I wanted to say that a totaly isolated person can still live by a certain moral system.

This can give him a sense of goodness, as well as internal pleasure, consistency and sense of 'oneness' with his God, or environment he feels entangled with.

This is not just functional justification of a certain rule system, this considers qualia, and is thus concerned also with 'goodness'.

A moral system will often include an external authority (a God) that always lurks behind the stage, judging the actions. So a lone person is nonetheless judged by the same rules as the one involved in social environment.

Additionally, the strong claim that the immorality of actions brings down the whole of humanity is not avoided by the actor's solitude.

In case of moral laws being enforced by a society, let's not forget that enforcerers of moral principles are sometimes even harder on themselves that they are on others; a lone person will be his own judge.

And bad acts usually do lead to just a bad conscience, and more often not even to that. This is not _just_ a bad conscience, this is a very strong principle of moral system upholding.

Joe, grunting and pointing is just as superficial as saying. It's just less clear. I would like to be able to directly communicate precisely what I am thinking to you, but until we gain the use of telepathy, I don't think that's going to happen.

And joe, how would that be any different from simply speaking something in a language neither of us knows? We could make that mean something if we assigned meaning to the sounds. The sounds you use aren't dependant on the meaning.