Which is exactly the opposite of objectivity. The problem with those is precisely that they are non-objective; they only seem, subjectively, good to a few people, disregarding any concern for consistency or neutrality, i.e. objectivity. — Pfhorrest
I agree that it is contrary to objectivity. I just disagree that the opposite therefore implies objectivity. The discerning feature is in the evolved biology of mankind: it is statistical, self-assembling and contingent. (We might yet evolve stronger bases for dealing with strangers, for instance.) Bad here is the same kind of bad as a bad apple tree that bears no apples: it is a failure to be what you are. We are social animals, evolved to outcast individuals who hurt the group as a whole. (We now actually praise such individuals. We might, on the contrary to my last parenthetical, yet evolve to see antisocial behaviour as good.)
And I think the truth of this lies in the cosmic insignificance argument, that, ultimately, it doesn't matter if you're a bad person in the scheme of things. You can't say that about the objective reality of, say, gravity: "Well, we released that ball and it went up, which is gravitationally bad, but not important in the scheme of things." Things falling upwards would render the reasoning behind an assumption of objective physical reality itself invalid, and science couldn't exist. It is the scheme of things that is most affected.
So it sounds like we are in agreement. — Pfhorrest
I think not quite. A couple of counter-examples...
I said above that most questions of harm (e.g. invasion, slavery, rape) can be resolved in a certain way. There are some that cannot be resolved this way. A Christian raises their child in their faith. For them, this is a morally good, possibly obligatory action depending on their views. For me, this counts as doing harm, insofar as it puts the child at a disadvantage in discerning truth from lies, reality from make-believe, and so is a morally bad, impermissible action. But this is a case where, if roles were reversed, the Christian would attest that they
would want the perceived harm done to them.
In your view there is one answer to this question: it has one particular position on each of the charts you presented. In my relativistic view, each of those charts belongs to an individual, with conformity between individuals giving statistical scales for a community. So while I bemoan the ignorance and harm, I do understand why it is right from the Christian's point of view to do what they are doing. It is a very good thing for them to do from their frame of reference, a very bad thing from mine.
Another is what I've mentioned before: insoluble moral questions, such as the train track question. Your schema dictates that there is an absolute answer, but we might not know it. Mine allows for the fact that the right answer for me is different from the right answer for you. A real-world example of this is the competing rights of women as described by trans-exclusionary feminists (TEFs) and of trans-women (TW). These arise out of mutually-exclusive concerns.
A TEF never has to consider what it is like to seem to yourself a woman trapped in a man's body by accident of birth. A TEF has always had to consider the danger of finding themselves along with a physically overpowering male stranger. A TW has less reason to consider the latter and more reason to consider the former. The problems that arise have binary answers. No midpoint between the two positions can be taken: either TW have access to female spaces or they do not; either TEFs accept TW as women (and become TIFs) which means, effectively, pretending that women born in men's bodies are typical women's bodies, or they do not.
Any answer to this binary question is nothing more than picking sides: "I hold the concerns of this group to be more important than the concerns of that group". That cannot concur with an objective moral position because it is in itself a bias. One could, and TIFs and TWs often do, argue that the TEF position is impermissible prejudice, but to do so would be to deny woman any safe space at all, including from cis men, which does harm. One could argue that cis women outnumber trans women and opt for the greater good, but that's qualitatively the same hypocrisy as slave traders and Nazis, i.e. to not extend altruism and empathy to smaller out-groups.
Moral relativism, based on the existential problem of applying biological moral capacity evolved in one environment to a completely different environment, allows for the fact that some moral questions only have frame-dependent answers. Moral objectivity does not: it is an assertion that one group's concerns outweigh another's in cases such as these through top-down morality in principle (if not in practise, lacking access to objective truths). But also in principle, either position could be legally enforced, and the course of moral trends would go one way or another. What's actually happening is that each property owner is responsible for insisting on their own moral position: if a CEO forbids TWs from using female toilets, that is their prerogative, and the TW is free to find a more sympathetic employer; if they permit it, that is also their prerogative and the TEFs are free to find a more sympathetic employer. Pluralism and relativism provide bottom-up solutions that actually make sense.