[marbletiles]

> I'm not stopping, I just don't agree with that.

Logic doesn't care if you agree or not, it just takes you to the conclusion anyway. And if that reveals you to have an incoherent position, so be it.

Also, you're not going to get far trying to define away moral aspects. _Why_ was the cycle law enacted? Presumably to reduce cyclist deaths. Why reduce those? You get to a moral question incredibly quickly from the most arcane law.

And your thinking that you can find a majority with "roughly similar pattern" without any need for debate is effectively saying "a majority will agree on fundamental moral axioms" and now you're nowhere near relativism. You might as well have posited the article's "moral facts", at this point.

[icebraining]

If I roll five dice, and three of them hit on 3, does that mean that 3 is some special number?

Moral relativism doesn't imply that everyone's subjective moral are all and always incompatible with each other. As people's subjective moralities change this way and the other, clusters are bound to happen - those are the "majorities".

What I deny is that any of those are the one objective morality. It's just the latest sample from the RNG. Tommorrow will bring new ones.

[marbletiles]

Again, it's not binary: you don't have to accept a moral objectivism just because you deny relativism.

I too deny that any of the axioms are the one objective morality (although the clusters of moral belief over time are nothing like you'd get from a RNG, and tomorrow broadly speaking does not bring new ones, but that's a digression).

[icebraining]

I'm not saying it's binary; I just don't see in what way is my position not relativist.

[marbletiles]

Your position is relativist. And you asked why relativism was so hard to accept. Well, like I said way upthread, it's because if you take a relativist position to its conclusion, you generally end up somewhere people find hard to accept. (Or less politely, you end up somewhere dumb).

And this case is a perfect example. In this case, you've pretty quickly ended up having to argue that "laws can be/are built on moral axioms that come about by chance because random moral preference generation will result in coincidental clusters of agreement"

Which contradicts the observed facts of moral development, aside from all the other problems with it.

You could spend a lot of time trying to shore this up, or could just start again with a better foundation than moral relativism.

[throwawayaway]

> Which contradicts the observed facts of moral development, aside from all the other problems with it.

Well I contradict your observed facts. Look at all the major religions, legal systems, there the similarities and differences are many.

[marbletiles]

Comparative religion disagrees with you. And you'll struggle to prove that the differences fit a random distribution or anywhere like it.