Yes, but the manner in which I frame my own “moral judgments” is always ensnared in this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
And that is very different from those who assume that while objections will come and go, the manner in which they construe their own judgment is said to reflect the objective [rational, virtuous, noble] truth.
Or so it seems to me.
In other words, this frame of mind transcends the perspective of either the utilitarians or the deontologists. And that is before we get to the arguments of those who root morality instead in either purely narcissistic or purely religious assumptions.
To insult or to not insult is neither here nor there from the perspective of the moral nihilist. At least this one.
My point is that if you really want to put forward a position of moral relativism (epistemologically - iow one cannot determine), then you cannot then leap out of that position and make moral judgments and be consistant. You cannot even generalize and say that objectivists are causing problems, since we have no way TO AGREE ON what a problem is, since this will have value judgments in it.
What I can do though is to focus the beam on an issue like abortion and flesh out the manner in which I construe this moral conflict as it relates in turn to the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Then for those who are in fact more sophisticated in their understanding of the tools of philosophy, they can then attempt an explanation of how my argument is not “technically” correct. Fine. I welcome that. But sooner or later using the tools of philosophy correctly they are going to have to utilize them to ascribe their own moral and political agenda “down here” in a world where actual abortions spark actual existential controversy.
One way to sum up this post is:
how does your position eliminate the arguments?
And if it doesn’t, and it clearly has not, so far, at least, why should this be a valid critique of other systems of belief?
My point is that, by the very nature of conflicting goods in a godless universe, the arguments of both sides will always prevail in some capacity. Why? Because re abortion we cannot live in a world where both the “good” associated with the birth of the unborn and the “good” associated with pregnant women having the right to choose prevail.
Instead, we must choose a world where those in power are able to dictate and then enforce their own value judgments or a world in which moderation, negotiation and compromise are able to sustain a political reconciliation.