Originally Posted by
CAT7RDR
So in our banditry example, I find it pretty cut and dry. Posters want to add more info or justify a position to make it "no big deal"
for various reasons.
I, on the other hand, stated even when I was invited by other charity riders, I did not partake because I knew it was morally wrong. Even if the event organizers invited me to stop at their rest/hydration station I would still decline because I did not pay for it.
So here is my experience by example. It did not "beg the question." It is based on reality not on exaggeration "kill each other as...".
Just because I recognize that no moral code is " natural " and that morality is a complex interaction between individual and social beliefs does not mean I wouldn't consider banditry wrong. Of course it's wrong, and it's too trivial a question to merit much in the way of debate. I'm objecting to your blanket condemnation of moral relativism and pluralism.
By the way, libertarianism is an absolute individualist philosophy which really screws up your whole classification of moralists. I'm pretty sure they could justify banditry or the use of force to prevent it.