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

[The Grand Nudger]

So while yes, one could claim a Nazis based their moral judgments by "following their heart", whatever that means, this seems to me like a false equivalence to my claim. FWIW I was not claiming this in any way represented or supported objective morality. 

This seemed like a particularly apt place to continue a survey of the moral field and metaethics in analytic philosophy.  While all instances of emotvism..by nazis or cooking baking grannies or you or me or the housecat actually are metaethically equivalent....I don't think that's what happened for the nazis.  

Specifically nazi ideology and nazi moral assertions were a distinct cultural phenomena.  Beyond non cognitives like emotivism, beyond our first cognitivist theory, subjectivism, there is additional moral content that comes down to the dictates and decrees our society.  Where those facts are the truth making properties of moral assertions.  This is cognitivist content too.  It says something that can be true or false just as subjectivism did, and unlike emotivism which isn't about true or false things.  A society really does make this or that demand,  a person can accurately relate the contents of their culture to another person - or they can butcher it.  The mere existence of this content, of these basis and these assertions, logically demonstrates that not all moral assertions or basis are or even can be subjective.

A person can also reject their cultural indoctrination in general or in specific, though.  They can know what society has to say about x, and reject that..both in specific on a statement by statement basis, but also in general as rejecting the set of all things "because society says so" as truth making properties in moral assertions.  Thus the statement "all moral assertions are relative" is demonstrably false.  So much daylight everywhere.  Daylight between non cognitivism and cognitivism.  Daylight between cognitivist theories like subjectivism and relativism.  Daylight between all of these isms and one, some, or many of our moral assertions.  We have still not exhausted the totality or circumscribed the total bounds of moral content or moral assertions even though we've drawn a map that includes emotivism, subjectivism, and relativism.  

The overwhelming majority of moral assertions you'll ever see or hear are presented as objectivist assertions...even if they are not.  As the thing x being bad.  The emotivist homophobe says queerness is bad but really means yuck.  The subjectivist says queerness is bad but really means it's not for him.  The relativist says queerness is bad but really means..and this one is on the nose, queerness is queer.  Maybe every purportedly objective moral assertion is one of these things in disguise....but I don't think so.  I think that's a very difficult claim to make or implicitly rely on.