Moral relativism is invoked almost exclusively by people trying to justify their own actions, after they find that many object to their actions.

Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it.

Any evidence-based system would be better than any system that ignores evidence. We have scientific evidence that the psychology of hate is tangible and specific in how it manifests. We have literally thousands of years of observations and ruminations on this topic, including the teachings of the major world religions.

Culture and society can be surprisingly good at dealing with largely invisible and quite subtle psychology. (Example: love/lust/dating -- Average people are actually quite sophisticated in how they perceive and deal with this.) But societies and cultures are constructed in such a way as to make group psychology around group membership invisible. Group psychology is part of what societies are made out of so the products of group psychology are promulgated as truth.

It's no accident that two different activist movements that are praised for their moral understanding -- those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. -- were effectively structured around the prevention of pathological group-think and othering. I think a subtle societal understanding of such group-think is the last great barrier to humanity's "Waking up from History."

I was going more for an analogy than an equality. I also did not mean to imply that the relevant moral observations are how one derives moral principles. The relevant observations are the questions: "I perceive situation X in reality. Is injustice present? Who has been aggrieved, and is there an aggressor?"

These are clearly observer dependent.

> Moral discussions are not a "game" since lives and, ultimately, civilization hangs in the balance

I vacillated on using the word game. The game isn't morality, but pondering what morality is. If I had called it a thought exercise I think it would have had slightly better connotations. I call processes of cognition games perhaps too often.

With respect to objectivity: Not even scientists attempt to achieve objectivity. They merely attempt to reach consensus. It can be a bitter and contentious process in even the most quantified sciences. For example, the disagreement over whether tetraquarks exist [1]. Objectivity is a naive concept. You cannot prove that your perception of objectivity is, well, objective. Objectivity is at best a useful fiction. It's actually a very useful fiction! But it can fail because one's understanding of objectivity cannot verify that it is objective.

I think you can imagine a kind of person who claims that others lack objectivity when they are disagreed with. They exist everywhere. There's a named logical fallacy for this kind of behavior. Demanding one's morality be objective does not make one's morality objective, but it means that every moral judgment one makes is now self-judged to be objective. The moral framework can be internally consistent but inconsistent in its reification into material judgments and actions.

> Moreover, your position assumes two things that the radical Islamists do not share; the value of a human life (in the here-and-now not some fantasy world) and that reason, not guns, are the means for resolving disagreements among civilized men.

Ok, so we're talking about "radical Islamists" now, so I'll assume you mean Daesh because the vague "radical Islam" is just a snarl phrase. Is Saudi Arabia an example of radical Islam? They're an ally to the United States. Notice how the countries that claim "reason, not guns, are the means for resolving disagreements" quite willingly and openly and readily act in direct contradiction of those ideals. There is a discrepancy between what people say morality is and what they do. Everyone loves their morality when it permits them to dominate others and shape the world the way they see fit. Everyone's morality permits them to commit atrocities.

I am a moral realist. I merely make the claim that a person should not believe they have a direct apprehension of moral truth because such a belief compromises the ability to apprehend moral truth. Therefore I demand of a person's moral framework that it be oriented towards analyzing and understanding differences between people's moral judgments. If I assume I am capable of understanding moral reality and meet someone who disagrees with me, I can either conclude they are incapable of the same understanding or the disagreement stems from different vantage points.

Believing two moral individuals can come up with different moral judgments in the same situation is the only sensible starting point towards reconciling conflicts. Understanding why moral people can come to different moral conclusions is the fundamental mechanism of justice. Otherwise violently asserting one's moral truth is the only mechanism.

> How do you deal with someone who not only doesn't share your moral "sentiments" but wants to actually kill you? Is there some basis to compromise in this case? Why do we shoot lions and bears instead of trying to reason with them? Is it moral for you to kill a fly in your house? What if I disagree and claim all life is sacred and you have a moral duty to leave the bugs alone and I am willing to use my guns to protect them from you? On what grounds could you possible oppose someone like that if you really believe morality is relative (i.e. subjective)?

I think you're missing the point. Just because science is supposed to be done via reproducing experiments and corroborating results between different scientists doesn't mean that science is paralyzed by the existence of a person who believes in crank theories and cannot properly run experiments and thus cannot effectively communicate their scientific activities to other scientists. Likewise my morality isn't paralyzed by hypothetical bug-zealots who act maximally unreasonably. If you believe the world is filled to the brim with brutish idiots with whom you cannot possibly communicate moral sentiments, well, I'll have you know there are plenty of them that feel exactly the same about you. How are you different? Your internal moral framework is no proof to me that you have a correct moral understanding of anything.

Here's a better example: You come across two kids at a playground. One sticks their tongue out at the other who then throws a punch and starts a fight.

30 seconds earlier, I saw the kid sticking their tongue out shove that other kid to the ground. Then I saw exactly what you saw.

I'm pretty sure our moral judgments are going to be different.

The real world is vastly more complicated than this contrived example. When you come into moral conflict with other people you can either assume they're a bunch of illogical, fact-spurning hate machines like the top-level comment in this thread[2], or you can believe that your difference in values and moral judgment of a situation arise from a difference in context which can be reconciled through communication and deliberation. If humans can't practically know everything in order to come to an absolute moral judgment, human morality is functionally observer dependent. That doesn't mean there isn't a moral reality that doesn't care about the vagaries of human perception and social context, it's just not practically accessible.

[1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140827-quark-quartet-fuels-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight

Let's assume everybody agreed with the "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" and everybody would have 100% similar general picture of what is moral.

Two people still interpret a situation from two points of view. Both making the judgement that the other guy is out of bounds. Which justifies some apprehension. But they both experience wrongful apprehension, which justifies pretty big apprehension. Which could result in full riot.

My point is that you cannot talk about ethics from individual point of view and expect to solve problems. You have to take into account societies as whole. Then consider with how it's done in practice. Ethical society cannot exist without good laws and good guardians for those laws. (And with 99% of population behaving good 99% of the time.)

Skeptical is not enough. Society has to be a instant jerk towards individuals who try to jerk around. Clear cut boundaries are needed, so you know to stay inside them.

I'd say there is no place for moral relativism inside a country. But between countries it's even necessary.

As the grandparent comment pointed out, there is no objective source of morality on any issue. As the OP pointed out, most people don't loudly proclaim themselves to be jerks. Outside of sociopaths and those with mental disorders, most people lie, kill and hate because they think it's somehow the right thing to do. Or because they can rationalize acting in their own self interest to be somehow fair or in the greater good.

Though the article tried to end on a positive tone, I found it to be pretty disheartening. It's easy to say "Don't be hateful", but much more difficult to say "Don't do what you think is right". Ain't no solution for that.

As another example (from what I've understood about some Asian cultures), "no" is considered rude in some cultures. It's quite acceptable in those cultures to end a business conversation with "I'll get back to you on that" and then never do. They wouldn't even consider it lying, they would consider it "the right thing to do".