Do you wish there's a god?

[fredd bear]

That's not an issue for or of moral realism in particular.  If you were a moral relativist, when looking at what the nazis did, for the reasons they gave, you would determine that what they did was good.  That their moral statements were true.

Shot in the dark, I'm guessing that you don't think it was good, or that their moral statements were true.  You think they were wrong.  Their moral statements and "sacred moral duty" a false one.   

What you're likely describing is a less controversial but very different position.  Descriptive moral relativism.  You notice that different cultures have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

Moral realism and moral relativism in contrast as metaethical positions ie "I'm a moral realist"/"I'm a moral relativist" takes it further than a surface level observation of the differences between cultures.  Asking he question (or making an assertion) as to why we think this or that thing is right or wrong, and what we mean when we say it.  Relativism takes the stance no moral statement has an absolute truth value.  That there is nothing about the act of genocide, for example (or any other thing) that's wrong.     If a culture thinks it's right, then it's right.

Interestingly, you and I may recoil, what do you mean genocide is right, and good? It hurts people!  That's exactly what the nazis


thought jews and other undesirables did, or their inaction would do.

 Excellent post, thank you.

The issue is complicated for me because  I remain a 'cultural Catholic'.  That means my day-to-day  moral values remain based in  Judaeo-Christian values. In practice that means I can agree intellectually on a given moral proposition, but remain emotionally against it. Terribly inconvenient at times,  I can tell you.

Yes, my positions is that there are no moral absolutes. However, based on what you've said, I'm no longer sure I'm a moral relativist.. My position is more  reactive than proactive. I tend to instinctively  question absolute claims, religious, political or even scientific.

Logically, my positions is that many behaviours we see as wrong are actually  morally neutral in and of themselves. The morality arises from the situation, intent and outcome.

I accept the moral value of greatest good for the greatest number as a rule of thumb. It is also my observation that politics and relations between nations are  based on "the ends justify the means" . Have come across a few apparent exceptions.

The old chestnut; is it moral to kill one to save 10,000?  I'd say yes. What about 1000? I'd still say yes. Where do I draw the line?

The answer to the hypothetical genocide is ;it depends.

I really don't know to what degree my various life positions are based on reason ,and to what degree on subjective experience.

I use labels; agnostic atheist, soft determinist ,cynic, skeptic, realist, In politics ,a  pluralist, believing in realpolitik. I'm not even sure I use  all these terms correctly ,and don't care: I know what I mean. Most important to me day-to-day is the label of skeptic. This position obliges me to question everything. Most important is to question my own beliefs, trying to avoid complacency and humbug. A constant uphill struggle.

Tired now ,but unbored.