Cirrus Light 
"[@Transparentist":](/1552457#comment_6610150
)
Masochism and Sadism are an exception, and in that case "hurting" is a bit more complicated.
I think the main issue here, though, is we mean different things when we say "morality". What are you even calling "morality", then? What makes you feel good/bad to do? What each particular person calls "good" or "evil"?
In that case, you've defined morality to be relative to "what makes+__you+__ feel good/bad" and "what +__each particular person+__ calls 'good' or 'evil'". So of course it's relative, you've defined it that way.
But I call morals, basically what I would call the difference in-between good or evil and what I think others ought to, as well. There's a different sort of implication and feel to calling something "unethical" as opposed to "immoral". Ethics are more of a careful study - it's unethical to, say, spend your vacation time working, since it would make coworkers begin to have to sacrifice_*their_* vacation time if they want to stay competitive with you, so it's unethical. But it's not what I would call "evil".
I would say evil is when you intentionally violate ethics, without concern for others' well-being, and good is intentionally following ethics. After all, it's somewhat incongruent with the idea of evil for someone to be "accidentally evil". But someone can most definitely be accidentally unethical - like, for example, if they work over their vacation oblivious to the unethical situation they're creating.
I mean, see - morals are a rich thing to explore, and saying they're whatever completely cheats out basically the entire conscience in its"[fascinating depth.":](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)
[bq]
> I can make a rational argument for why "Murder is bad" is a good morality to have without saying that that any other moral compass is invalid.[/bq]
How so? What does validity even mean if it has nothing to do with any kind of value judgement? Moral compasses that point to "murder is good" are bad. But then you're using morality in that judgement because you're saying "is bad". Either that, or you're saying their compass is broken because the only thing a "bad compass" can really mean is it's broken and/or morally inferior to another.
In which case you're either
A) saying that their moral compass is broken, which implies there's a "fixed" compass to compare it to, or
B) you're using your own morality to make a judgement about their morality by saying "it's bad", which is a different statement than "it's not a taste I agree with", it's actually saying it's_*bad_*, which means there's some morality it can be compared to in a valid way. If you really believe all morals and moral compasses are on equal footing and none is really better than any other, then you can't say _*anything_* is bad or good, because it's all just relative. _*That's_* real, physical relativism - you can't say anyone is moving, only moving relative to each other.
But you still believe in your own moral views, so you believe things are good or bad, which means you believe in a "preferred frame" so to speak. Moral relativism makes no sense if you hold any moral views at all, and that's why it has such a negative reaction - because you're effectively saying that a hypothetical R-rated Storm King torturing Twilight and killing ponies for kicks and giggles isn't actually "bad", just "bad" to some people's morals, and saying he's "bad" is no more valid than him saying he's "good".
And that's why it's repulsive. We find it repulsive when people are unwilling to call heinous acts evil, and if it's all relative, then he's not "evil", he just has a different compass. Same could be said of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, or any genocidal manaic. You're refusing to say they're actually_*evil_*, and asserting that it's just as valid to call them _*good_* as it is to call them _*evil_* - _*that's +__relativism+__*.
But - with some assumptions, such as they knew what they were doing and somehow weren't doing some sincere greater good - they're evil. And in order to say they're_*actually_* evil, you have to say your system of morality is a "preferred frame", which means it's not relative.
And that's basically why people will get upset at you for saying morals are relative. Because you really_*do_* have to believe in some level of moral objectivism if you think it's more valid to call a serial killer evil than to call him a saint. By definition, if some morals are more valid than others, then they are not relative. I refuse to believe that there's _*any_* valid system of morals where causing horrendous suffering for your own selfish enjoyment is good, therefore, I do not believe in moral relativism and find it a disturbing position, as it makes disturbing implications about what someone who _*truly_* believes in it would do if they thought they could get away with it.
Again and again, if Storm King tortures Twilight because he enjoys watching her suffer, I will never accept that any morality that calls him "good" is valid. Therefore, not_*truly_* relative, since some moralities _*are_* more valid than others.
On some finer details, it can be difficult, but a lack of people agreeing does not mean there is no true answer. By metaphor, the surface of a sphere is "locally flat":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent * everywhere - each infintesimal piece is flat, but that doesn't mean the entire surface is flat. Just because when you really zoom in on a hard question like the Trolley Cart problem you can't get many people to agree on an answer, doesn't mean you can extend that "everything's on the same level" all the way to the other side of the sphere to something evil.
Much like how things can seem flat within a mile or a few, so it's hard to detect any curvature on the Earth - any _real_ change from good to evil, say, in-between the two solutions to the Trolley Cart problem. But that doesn't mean there aren't any even if you go a lot further.
*see: Limit definition of a derivative. "This generalizes to surfaces.":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent_space
Sciencepone of Science!
Masochism and Sadism are an exception, and in that case "hurting" is a bit more complicated.
I think the main issue here, though, is we mean different things when we say "morality". What are you even calling "morality", then? What makes you feel good/bad to do? What each particular person calls "good" or "evil"?
In that case, you've defined morality to be relative to "what makes
But I call morals, basically what I would call the difference in-between good or evil and what I think others ought to, as well. There's a different sort of implication and feel to calling something "unethical" as opposed to "immoral". Ethics are more of a careful study - it's unethical to, say, spend your vacation time working, since it would make coworkers begin to have to sacrifice
I would say evil is when you intentionally violate ethics, without concern for others' well-being, and good is intentionally following ethics. After all, it's somewhat incongruent with the idea of evil for someone to be "accidentally evil". But someone can most definitely be accidentally unethical - like, for example, if they work over their vacation oblivious to the unethical situation they're creating.
I mean, see - morals are a rich thing to explore, and saying they're whatever completely cheats out basically the entire conscience in its
[bq]
> I can make a rational argument for why "Murder is bad" is a good morality to have without saying that that any other moral compass is invalid.
How so? What does validity even mean if it has nothing to do with any kind of value judgement? Moral compasses that point to "murder is good" are bad. But then you're using morality in that judgement because you're saying "is bad". Either that, or you're saying their compass is broken because the only thing a "bad compass" can really mean is it's broken and/or morally inferior to another.
In which case you're either
A) saying that their moral compass is broken, which implies there's a "fixed" compass to compare it to, or
B) you're using your own morality to make a judgement about their morality by saying "it's bad", which is a different statement than "it's not a taste I agree with", it's actually saying it's
But you still believe in your own moral views, so you believe things are good or bad, which means you believe in a "preferred frame" so to speak. Moral relativism makes no sense if you hold any moral views at all, and that's why it has such a negative reaction - because you're effectively saying that a hypothetical R-rated Storm King torturing Twilight and killing ponies for kicks and giggles isn't actually "bad", just "bad" to some people's morals, and saying he's "bad" is no more valid than him saying he's "good".
And that's why it's repulsive. We find it repulsive when people are unwilling to call heinous acts evil, and if it's all relative, then he's not "evil", he just has a different compass. Same could be said of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, or any genocidal manaic. You're refusing to say they're actually
But - with some assumptions, such as they knew what they were doing and somehow weren't doing some sincere greater good - they're evil. And in order to say they're
And that's basically why people will get upset at you for saying morals are relative. Because you really
Again and again, if Storm King tortures Twilight because he enjoys watching her suffer, I will never accept that any morality that calls him "good" is valid. Therefore, not
On some finer details, it can be difficult, but a lack of people agreeing does not mean there is no true answer.
Much like how things can seem flat within a mile or a few, so it's hard to detect any curvature on the Earth - any _real_ change from good to evil, say, in-between the two solutions to the Trolley Cart problem. But that doesn't mean there aren't any even if you go a lot further.
*see: Limit definition of a derivative. "This generalizes to surfaces.":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent_space