[kareemsabri]

That's called moral relativism. It does't get you very far, because it is a belief system with no values, and therefore nothing to aim at.

There are some tools for objectively judging morality aka "good and bad". One is the principle of universality. So an outcome is moral if you can reasonably state that you would be equally happy to be on either side of the table. Slavery generally fails this test, since most people would prefer not to be slaves. Virtually everyone on either side of the slavery divide (slave/free) valued freedom, some of them just didn't value the freedom of other people.

[StephenMelon]

The capitalism system itself fails the universality test, because a person wouldn’t be equally happy to be on either side of a table with Jeff Bezos on one side and an unskilled immigrant on the other.

Arguably slavery never went away, it’s just that the slavery franchise was disguised/rebranded and then extended as social mobility was slowly rolled back.

[kareemsabri]

That's not a valid test, since you can't switch bodies with Jeff Bezos. I'd also disagree with your premise, because presumably the unskilled immigrant desired to immigrate to capitalist America in this thought experiment.

I think it went away. Capitalism doesn't force anyone to work, you may choose not to participate in the labour market and be homeless.

[stinkytaco]

As an interesting aside, this statement shows the massive impact Kant has had on modern thought. To the point that it's difficult to overestimate his impact. The principle of universality is a relatively modern phenomenon. For much of recorded history that was not the dominant value.[1]

[1]: There's several good texts exploring how people may have thought at various times in history (because it's all speculation, of course), but one I enjoyed was A Time Travelers Guide to Medieval England.

[echaozh]

The principle of universality was and is still dominant value in east Asia by the teaching of Confucius.

[stinkytaco]

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I should have specified "western thought".

[kareemsabri]

Very true, stinkytaco

[apoverton]

I'm not saying I don't have beliefs, and sometimes feel that those beliefs are right compared to what other people think, but I try to recognize where things may be objective (like slavery) and subjective (like government spending).

The tool you mentioned makes a lot of sense for issues that have a clear preference e.g. slavery or not, but I suspect it would show cracks if we start looking at more subjective issues (which I imagine dominate nowadays).

[icebraining]

There's nothing objective about picking and applying an arbitrary principle, though.

Also, it's not true that a moral relativist must have no values. One can have values while believing they are not objective, but closer to preferences held very strongly.

[kareemsabri]

A moral relativist may have values, but moral relativism does not. It claims all values are subjective, as OP did.

[apoverton]

I think your last sentence gets at what I was trying to get across