People Twitter

This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors.

Is he saying the first point is wrong or just that it conflicts with the second?

The misunderstanding I see here is in the definition of “subjective”.

Subjective is often used interchangeably with opinion. And people can certainly have different opinions.

But the subjective that is meant is that morals don’t exist without a subject, aka a mind to comprehend them.

A rock exists whether or not a mind perceives the rock. The rock is objective. It is a physical object.

The idea that it is wrong to harm someone for being different is subjective. It is an idea. A thought. The thought does not exist without a mind.

So yes. Morals are all subjective. Morals do not exist in the physical world. Morals are not objects, they do not objectively exist. They exist within a subject. Morals subjectively exist.

That does not mean that any set of morals is okay because it’s just an opinion, bro. Because it’s not just an opinion. Those subjective values effect objective reality.

I don't know, I might intellectually understand that morals are relative to a culture and that even our concept of universal human rights is an heritage of our colonial past and, on some level, trying to push our own values as the only morality that can exist. On a gut level though, I am entirely unable to consider that LGBT rights, gender equality or non-discrimination aren't inherently moral.

I don't think holding these two beliefs is weird, it's a natural contradiction worth debating and that's what I would expect from an ethics teacher

viewing disagreement as moral monstrosity

This should be the slogan of public social media.

I'm not quite following. From my recollection meta ethics deal with the origins of morality, with absolutism being that morality is as inherent to nature as, say, gravity is, and relativism that morality is a social construct we have made up.

Is it hypocrisy to acknowledge something is a social construct while also strongly believing in it?

If I grew up in the 1400s I'd probably hold beliefs more aligned with the values of the time. I prefer modern values because I grew up in modern society. I find these values superior but also acknowledge my reason for finding them superior ultimately boils down to the sheer random chance of when and where I was born.

This is basically how teaching secular ethics always is, though. Doesn't seem special about 2025. People will always be overconfident in their beliefs, but it's not necessarily a coincidence or even hypocrisy that they can hold both views at the same time.

You can believe that morality is a social construct while simultaneously advocating for society to construct better morals. Morality can be relative and opposing views on morality can still be perceived as monstrous relative to the audience's morality.