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

[Sheldon]

One moral worldview is only better than the other, if one accepts the subjective assertion that caring about others and how they're treated is moral, and not caring immoral. 

When a moral assertion makes a claim to facts and satisfies that claim to facts in the same way that other statements which make claims to facts satisfy those claims to facts and are considered true, then we are going to need some compelling reason not to consider the moral assertion true in the same way, by the same means. 

I would agree, but none of the examples appear to do this? The conclusion that X is moral / immoral remained subjective, even when it was preceded with a fact that Y led to X. 

 The homefield advantage of moral realism in logical discussions (rightly or wrongly). It treats moral assertions of truth like any other assertion of truth.

Well I find the "idea that moral claims are true if they accurately describe objective features of the world" dubious. Since we saw you offer examples that contained true statements, or partially true, and yet the moral conclusions were still subjective, or required further subjective assertions. 

Relativism and subjectivism are not interchangeable.  

Well, in as much as they are distinct concepts yes, but both moral relativism and subjectivism deal with the idea that morality isn't absolute, and on that point at least I agree. 

If there is such a thing as moral relativism then not all moral statements are subjective.

Though they will ultimately rest on a subjective moral assertion. For example we can say it is true that murder causes harm, if we then accept the subjective assertion that causing harm is immoral, then the assertion that murder is immoral would be objectively true. The problem is that the first subjective claim is also relative, what if the harm were considered necessary? Then the statement murder is immoral is not objectively true, no? 

Your specific reasons do not matter, consequences do not matter, the wellbeing of human beings in any number does not matter, the anachronistic nature of morals does not matter, whether there are any rules and any circumstance of history does not matter, problematic does not matter...if morality is subjective. 

Isn't that a subjective claim as well? If it matters to me, it informs my morality, subjective or not. Though I accept my subjective notions of morality need not matter to anyone else. 

Moral objectivity and moral absolutism are not interchangeable. 

Well they share the idea that morality is universal, and that there is a single set of rules that apply to everyone all the time in all places. I'd assumed at least, that a moral absolute would have to be objectively true? 

We're not perfect or ideal agents 

How could our moral disinctions be found flawed in the absence of facts of those matters.

I drew the inference that since we are not infallible, no idea we create can be infallible, hence flawed or imperfect. It seemed a reasonable inference to me.