I know people attribute their morality to what they believe. I know I have no such inclination, because belief, while subjectively sufficient, has no objective validity, which is exactly what morality demands. — Mww

Is your priority getting truth and falsity from moral statements? Then I offer up moral relativism to you. It becomes more about what best suits you or I or him or her, rather than what's the case. I think they call this pragmatism. — S

Is your priority getting truth and falsity from moral statements? Then I offer up moral relativism to you. It becomes more about what best suits you or I or him or her, rather than what's the case. I think they call this pragmatism. — S

...morality can indeed be conceptually reduced further than mere belief. — Mww

I don’t think belief has anything to do with morality to begin with — Mww

Do you hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false?
— creativesoul

...Yes, I do, in the sense I think is the best way forward for ethics, which is the moral relativism sense... — S

"X is immoral relative to A" is true if X is immoral relative to A, and false otherwise.

But that's obvious. — S

S has got you by the short hairs. — Mww

Do you hold that "X is immoral" can be true/false?
— creativesoul

Yes, I do, in the sense I think is the best way forward for ethics, which is the moral relativism sense. — S

"X is immoral relative to A" is true if X is immoral relative to A, and false otherwise.

But that's obvious. — S

Are you a moral objectivist?
— creativesoul

No, of course I'm not. — S

Clearly you hold that "X is immoral relative to A" can be, as do I.

Can A's belief be mistaken(false)?

That's where we sem to differ. — creativesoul

I don't know what those reasons are, and I'm not going to look through this discussion to find them, but I will say that I think that rejecting that distinction is about as sensible as rejecting the black/white distinction or the yes/no distinction. That is, to do so is pretty senseless, and a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. — S

The relevant statement is not even "X is immoral", it's "X is immoral relative to Person A" and "X is immoral relative to Person B". There is no "X is immoral" under moral relativism. — S

Are you claiming that "X is immoral" can be true/false as a result of agreeing with a person's moral belief?
— creativesoul

Aren't you reading what I'm saying about "X is immoral" for the position of moral relativism? — S

We are talking about morality. Thus, it should be obvious that when someone says "X is wrong", the sense of the term wrong is a moral one... equivalent to unacceptable, for all morality is about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour.

Acceptable is good/moral and unacceptable is bad/immoral...
— creativesoul

What is your problem? Someone says "X is wrong". Okay. Under subjective moral relativism, that's false or at least unwarranted if interpreted as per moral objectivism, which is the interpretation which you seem to be stuck on.

Problem resolved. — S

That's never been a problem. It's a problem if one claims that "X is immoral" is both true(relative to person A's belief) and false(relative to person B's).
— creativesoul

It's not a problem, because it's not a contradiction, and I'm done trying to get you to understand what a contradiction requires and why that doesn't count. Putting a relevant distinction in brackets does nothing at all. They're not the same. End of — S

All you've done is overstate the case regarding the fact that different people have different moral belief.

So what?

Yes, person A holds that behaviour X is immoral. Person B disagrees.

When person A says "X is immoral" they are stating their belief. When person B says "X is moral" they are stating theirs. The two contradict one another.

So what?
— creativesoul

Indeed, so what? I have no problem with that. I have a problem when someone suggests that there's an objective correct or incorrect, because I don't see sufficient evidence supporting that. — S

But a moral relativist has to ask that question. They do not accept a simple, absolute "wrong".

If someone can't understand that, then they'll never understand moral relativism. This is the fundamental basis of moral relativism. — S

"X is immoral".

Person A agrees. Person B does not.

According to S, neither person can be mistaken. That would require the statement to be both true and false at the same time. True for person A. False for person B.

Clearly that cannot be the case.

The problem is a conflation of truth and belief. More precisely, a conflation between truth conditions and belief conditions. — creativesoul

...there's a difference between wrong relative to him and wrong relative to me. Relativism does not entail right and wrong in any sense other than this relative sense... — S