Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think that believing in a subjective morality, means that one endorses atrocities.  I don't think they have an external basis, in which to criticize, or say that others are right or wrong.  And I see your point, "equal" was probably a poor choice of words on my part.  "Indifferent" perhaps would be a better choice, as there is not a common basis for comparison.  I apologize, if I came off as attempting to state what a moral relativist believes.  Rather what I meant is that there is a disconnect, between there moral relativism, and their actions or behavior; which doesn't follow from that position.

Moral relativism is a bit of a different kettle of fish than moral subjectivism. Relativism is about lack of absolutes. There is no absolute standard of what constitutes 'long' for instance. It's no barrier to determining whether one piece of string is longer than another...relativism is about making comparisons, and a relativist can certainly claim that Quakers are better than Nazis, they just can't claim it's not possible to be better than a Quaker or worse than a Nazi. Moral relativism says that actions are morally better or worse depending on the agents and circumstances and necessarily involves a moral judgment about what's better or worse. Moral relativism is a position that can be held simultaneously with a belief in objective morality...in which case it just means that objective morality is complicated and fluid.