Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[The Grand Nudger]

Moral disagreement does not imply or prove that a moral system is not metaethically objective. I want to stress again that an objectivist moral claim can be wrong, and it's the only kind of moral claim that can be wrong, in any non novel sense. For a relativist claim to be true in it's specified sense it need only accurately reflect society's decrees. For a subjectivist claim to be true in it's specified sense it need only reflect an individuals opinions. You see how it's very difficult for such claims to be false when relaying such details? All three claims report true facts about something - or purport to, hence their clumping together as the cognitivist moral theories.

If you ask me for empirical examples of harm I can present you with toe stomping and murder. This is what I mean by harm. Both things are included (and many more). If you ask me which one is a worse harm I will refer to the empirical difference between toe stomping and murder. In one your toe is sore and the other you are dead. This seems demonstrative to me.

That is the truth making property of harm in my objectivist assertion..even if we lived in the upside down, and stepping on toes really was objectively more harmful, or no less harmful, than murder. I would still be an objectivist in that universe I would still be making an objectivist assertion. I would just be wrong.

The point of all of this, ofc, not being to prove some particular set of moral content the one and only true set of moral content (by any cognitivist theory). The point being that they are all available to all of us, and there is no logical necessity to make concessions to a nutter in their endless pursuit of imaginary hypocrisy. I believe, for example..that trans people exist, that trans people exist and can be harmed, and are being harmed. Up to and including being murdered. If we could get the people who murdered trans people to just step on their toes, that would be an improvement. I'm persuadable here and anywhere as an objectivist, but no fact about me or society will persuade me. The conclusion rests on those facts listed. The empirically demonstrable fact of trans peoples existence and the empirical fact of trans people ability to be harmed and the empirical evidence of that harm would have to be in error, for my conclusion as stated to be in error. The nuts don't own metaethical objectivity and empiricism, they're aren't even in the same county as metaethical objectivity and empiricism.