I would recommend reading the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophies entries on moral realism and anti realism. You do a lot of conflating of "moral relativism" with "anti realism" These are very distinct things. One is subset of the other and by conflating them it does a disservice

A list of things that violate most people's moral intuitions does nothing to demonstrate the existence of mind independent moral facts. It might win an optical battle, but it's not particularly good evidence. If moral facts exist, why can't realists stop the grandstanding and just demonstrate them? What are they? How are they derived?

Morality is subjective, in so far, that it is not a natural phenomenon. But that doesn't mean you couldn't regard your moral framework as universal and preferable to other's moral convictions. I think you may have misinterpreted that reddit poll.

Great stuff 😀

You're substitute the definition(s) (or the abstraction) to reality. There's no pure moral relativism, there's no pure moral objectivity. It would be much simpler if us westerners would grab a page out of the eastern-type philosophies and start looking at 'things' ('things' in itself is a bothersome word for me, it smells too strongly of ancient Greek philosophy) as a whole rather than wielding that Aristotelian metaphysical knife that separates everything in immiscible categories. Killing a human being is wrong, this is a stance *most* people would adopt. But hey, when that dude is holding a gun at the head of someone you love, you'd be sure to change your morals on that particular point (or at least *most* people would). I'm pretty sure that among the people that decided in some US states that death penalty is ok are Christians too, imbued with the 'objective' morals of the Bible. How do you reconcile this? I'll tell you how: first you start with the rather objective fact that most people do not like to be the villain - that is, they don't like to think of themselves to have bad morals; secondly, you cook up a story, a version of the reality where what you do is for the greater good, it is actually morally superior to do what you do. This is how you end up with genocides, Holocaust, death penalty, wars etc. The very fact that you have what? like 6 answers to your 'debunking' video taking another stance than yours is a telltale sign that you didn't quite 'debunk' this stuff properly. And you never will - morals is one of the hottest things philosophers have debated during the past 2.5k years of philosophy history - and there's no end in sight to this debate. All the definitions put forward by western philosophers for morality of one type or another have precision but they lack accuracy. The more you try to grind the 'tip' of your definition to make it more precise the more 'material' you lose so you end up with a sharp definition that doesn't say much about the reality it supposedly describes (not my metaphor this, I think it's Levi-Strauss') . Aristotle says that 'law is universal but about some things it is not possible to make a universal statement which shall be correct’. Most values fall into this category as they are hard to pin down by science or philosophy, hard to encode in a definition, and if you pose axioms about them you can literally start wars with those that disagree with you. As a conclusion: to be accurate about imprecise things your knowledge has to be imprecise. You don't catch small fishes with a bow and arrow, you reserve that for a large, visible fish. You catch small fry using a net. (hopefully my ramblings will be useful to some, I'm quite positive I didn't make a dent into this video's author take on morals - this t.ly/u3HSH article, written 45 years ago, is golden in explaining why)

This video is pure "argument from consequences" fallacy: "if morality was subjective, it would lead to consequences I don't like, therefore morality is objective". I don't think I have to explain why this train of thought is fallacious. The fact that people's moral judgements vary so much between cultures and time periods, or even person-to-person, PROVES that morality is not objective. Of course you can argue that it *should* be objective. But that's just your opinion.

Moral relativism isn’t about what is true about morals. It’s like a preference. Moral relativism means that people have different preferences and these preferences are true in the sense that people have them. And you can condemn anything because it would be condemnable in the sense that someone is wrong based on your morality. The thing you can’t demonstrate moral objectivism because objectivity means it’s true even when absent or differing a subjective experience. You can have universal morality and/or objective morality ONCE values are agreed upon. I️ will gladly debate you on this. Moral subjectivism is just true. Even if moral subjectivism has problems doesn’t mean it’s not true. It’s just the way humanity is. There is no perfect system.

Of course relativism is only relatively true but so is absolutism. Also you’ve put no effort into proving scientific realism at all and just stated it. These horrible events through history are just that horrible, but the central claim of moral realism is that it is irrational to do these actions which I don’t think you’ve proven. I would want someone not to genocide me, I wouldn’t want other people to be genocided I might even take action to prevent both of these thing but notice at no step here do I have to call these things evil Good video, I just think you need to give more credence to the anti-realist/relativist position

The bible is the word of man, not god.