Am I the only one who thinks that this definition is bizarre?
Subjectivists and moral relativists also think that there are right and wrong ways to behave. They also think that some people behave badly.
Or has it come to the point where all behaviors are equally right? Equally reasonable? Equally natural?
Dasein.
Or how we plebs say it - being here.
Two people have an argument about something.
The moral relativist tells the other person that what he is saying is only in his opinion and this makes him/her/dasein superior less dogmatic, more openminded and so on.
The other person, obviously, is a moral objectivist because he does something bad like attributing intrinsic qualities to people. It’s bad because it is Randian objectivism, I mean, it’s Hitler.
To clarify this.
If the moral objectivist attributes universal intrinsic qualities to people then it’s Randian.
If the moral objectivist attributes different intrinsic qualities to different groups of people then it’s Hitler.
As anyone who almost always adds ‘in my opinion’ to what he/she/being-here says will tell you -
The bottomline is, man is malleable by society and society is responsible for his success and failures so it is only right that everybody can and does complain about his plight in life and blame, or get blamed for by society/me.
And of course, also right to get compensated by society.
To be made equal.
It’s important for the moral relativist’s arguments to never state the ideals he holds directly but to imply them.
So for example, to imply that open mindedness is a good thing.
Is it always good, is it sometimes bad. No need to waste your time and energy and defend this ideal - don’t be a foolish moral objectivist.
Just imply and be in general on the offensive, make the other one justify his ideals and positions, you, you only imply.
If everything fails and your opponent has sniffed you out then fall back to repetition and be steadfast with your points.
Just repeat them over and over again and pretend the other one’s arguments are wrong, I mean, imply they are wrong.
After all, it’s all relative and nobody can tell what is a better or worse argument. And anybody who says anything else, well, that’s just their opinion but I…
I at least recognize that it’s just my opinion.
First, let’s look up the definition of the word definition:
[b][i]
In other words, I am not defining moral and political objectivism above. I am merely noting [as an opinion] what I mean when I use the words.
And then over and again I ask those who disagree with that frame of mind to come up with one of own. And then to bring that frame of mind down to earth and to note how it is pertinent to their own behaviors when those behaviors come into conflict with others as a result of conflicting value judgments.
And when they do I ask them to note how their own value judgments are more than just subjective personal opinions – political prejudices – derived existentially from the life that they have actually lived. And ever subject to change in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. And then [sooner or later] colliding with others out in a world of conflicting goods.
Let him choose a behavior in which there clearly are conflicting goods and we can explore all of this more, say, substantively.
I think the quoted passage is not articulated well. I think, after all that I have read of iam, that he is referring to metaphysics in general and rationalism in particular. Rationalists, of course, start with assumptions that they do not take to be assumptions. That Pure Reason, (whatever that may be) gives us an irrefutable set of initial premises from which we may deduce what are equally irrefutable rights and wrongs.
Most moral relativists will claim that there are no universal first premises - that fist principles will, say, be culturally based. Moral subjectivism is a much more malleable term, but may mean, for instance, that moral premises may have a psycho-social basis.
All believe that there is right and wrong and either of the latter may claim that there are in-groups and out-groups.
As for actual moral objectivists -
A moral objectivist believes that there is a universal moral code which applies to all people.
A moral good which is good for all people.
A code of conduct which is good for society, any society, and which everybody should adhere to.
What Biggster considers to be moral objectivism is being authoritarian, the kind of authoritarian which bases his decisions on his own evaluations and judgements.
Not to be confused with a 51% majority at a democratic vote, that would be the ‘lesser evil’ of the two.
Then you agree that the moral relativist thinks of behavior as right and wrong. But he is not forthright about it.
Ashamed or afraid to think as he does. Avoiding responsibility for his beliefs, maybe. 
Okay, Is_ but it’s not that simple. The reason rights (political rights) have been developed is to protect individuals from the tyranny of the 51%. Democracy by itself has nothing to do with morality. Thus, iam is promoting an entirely amoral view. He is against all manner of morality. That much is clear, no?
Yes I think he has his biases, he will probably even admit them.
The result is that he only fights those ‘objectivists’ which he finds to be his opposition, whose views he dislikes.
And he does fight them all in the same way, with the same arguments, which is already a red flag that he can and does always use the same tactic no matter the argument which was made.
He has found the one argument to kill them all. The ‘that’s just your opinion, man’ argument.
The ‘in my opinion’ is how you demonstrate your moral superiority without calling yourself morally superior - you imply it.
Or you could say, it’s about demonstrating your humbleness, which in turn is supposed to hint at wisdom.
Sounds like : “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Attempting to distance yourself from what you wrote.
The quote does not make a distinction between objectivist and moral relativist (or subjectivist).
I’m still not clear how you reasonably separate the two.
Here you say that they(objectivist/subjectivist/moral relativist) are the same but objectivists don’t admit that all value judgements are personal opinions.
Is that it? The refusal to say that is what marks an objectivist?
How many times have we discussed the problem of a sociopath/psychopath raping and killing a woman?
Many, many times.
But he is always writing about “bringing it down to earth”, so he can’t be refering to something so abstract.
I think that rationalism is what he is most ardently objecting to.
I would call it an up-to-date morality.
We are constantly progressing - morality is constantly being up-dated - to be up to date.
“But how can you have this morality? - It’s 2016!”
Or to put it in a 1984 perspective - Always a new dictionary, always a new revision and to be up-to-date is double-plus-good.
I mean, how would you know you are living in a totalitarian system? Would the sky be grey and everybody wear the same outfits?
I think you would constantly get updates on the new rules, the new morals in society which are changed by this benevolent entity - let’s call it society - yet, which would be so complex and mysterious that nobody really can tell how those views are created and brought into circulation.
Explanation which will suffice - it is some egalitarian swarm intelligence.
How would that work? Every second, you are choosing the world that you want to see. If everyone is choosing his/her own amoral direction, then one would expect people to scatter in every moral direction.
If people are moving in one direction, then an objectivist will say it’s because there is an underlying tendency in humans. Maybe it’s due to biology.
Iambig explains it as education/conditioning/brainwashing.
Principles of ‘amoral’ or up-to-date morality -
Love, don’t hate!
or
No bigotry!
The key is that where these slogans are applied is not necessarily consistent but the context is always brought into circulation by the (social) media and institutions.
So the morality is very, very basic, the key is to control where and when and in which context the principles are adhered to and where they are ignored.
“Technically”, sure, the points that I raise here may not be up to snuff. The “serious philosopher” may take me to task for not articulating myself in an epistemologically sound [or sophisticated] manner.
You got me.
But what on earth does any of this mean when the discussions do shift to actual conflicting human behaviors? Behaviors that come to clash over countervailing assessments of right and wrong or good and evil.
Fine. Distinction noted. But when your own value judgments come into conflict with others how would that distinction actually be noted? Illustrate your point please.
There is a difference between acknowledging that for all practical purposes any particular human community must make distinctions between behaviors that are rewarded and behaviors that are punished, and arguing in turn that philosophers are able to advise this community such that the optimal set of behaviors are established.
And yet from my frame of mind that is basically what the objectivists do. Either through one or another God or one or another political ideology or one or another philosophical [intellectual] contraption, they do make that distinction between one of us [the good guys] and one of them [the bad guys].
And that is not philosophy so much as human psychology. The psychology of objectivism.