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

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll never get tired of looking for rosetta stones.

What most people would refer to as relative or subjective in these discussions are instances, in a metaethical sense, of failed objectivity. This is because we learn relativism and subjectivism as critical theories, complimentary to our academic or pragmatic or aspirational objectivity. People rarely just come out sand say x is bad because I say so. Or x is bad because my society says so. Or, for that matter, believe as much. They employ the semantics of objectivity, instead..which in and of itself opens them up to objective scrutiny. This just so happens to be the simplest and most bare bones answer to another question. Let's say that we stop bickering over the different categories of cognitivist moral truth statements and specific moral basis or predicates like harm as cogent or as possibilities. Why should we use the objectivists metrics instead of the subjectivists or the relativists, why should we use the harmists?

Well, they did. We do. If we stopped using those semantics, and corrected our moral assertions for their respective metaethical basis as positions..and not merely critical provisions, then there wouldn't be such an obvious reason to use the objectivist semantics. If moral realism were nothing else it would be the insistence that moral statements be true as stated, to be considered true as stated. Subjective and relative statements, as the terms are used casually, are not true as stated. They're stated objectively but true subjectively or relatively. This is not the same as "not true, but believed in by someone or many someone's". It refers to things that -are- true -because- those are the truth making properties of those metaethical claims or systems...and if they are, let's clearly state that instead.