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

[The Grand Nudger]

You're describing moral objectivism. Like Ben Shapiro, but for different reasons, you believe that the term means or refers to things it does not, and cannot include things that it does as metaethics use the term, to distinguish between three different cognitivist moral theories. Different grounds for truth, different truth making properties. Rightly or wrongly. Correct or incorrect. You're using the terms subjective and relative in a casual sense - which I understand perfectly well and agree with, as an objectivist, btw.

I want to point out for what seems like the millionth time that none of these extenuating circumstances like speeding cars or intent or whatever are relevant to metaethical subjectivity or relativity. It is for -no- fact of the matter in question that metaethically subjective or relative claims are true. That is what distinguishes them from objectivity, conceptually, and also what distinguishes them from each other.

We can, ofc, believe that we always fail at objectivity because of specific incompetence. Our subjective natures. Our cultural indoctrinations. I don't believe that's the case. I still stand on there being an objective and empirically verifiable difference in harm between stepping on toes and murder. If there are extenuating circumstances to either then we're just talking extenuating circumstances to lesser and greater harms. I also think that there is objective and empirically verifiable evidence that harm is a compoent in whatever we happen to be talking about when we talk about moral systems -of any kind-. Even noncognitive moral systems like emotivism have an implicit harm base, as the subject seeks to avoid the experience of discomfort and disgust..or, in extreme cases, abject terror at certain (to them) impending harm.