Atheism and nihilism

[zippy2006]

The moral is the chosen.

Not according to dictionaries it's not. You're not talking about morality; you're talking about a kind of expediency towards arbitrary goals.

Let me just highlight some of the contradictory language that points to this same conclusion...

It's only because we must choose to live, that we must choose to discover the values our life requires, and we must choose to practice the virtues need to get them, that we need a code of values.

No, you should have said, "It's only because we choose to live," not "It's only because we must choose to live..." On your view we need not choose to live. "Must, must, must," is categorical language. All you're describing is doing things for ends. That's just planning, not morality.

Because how I act matters.

You say that your actions matter and yet you think it is equally moral to commit suicide as to live your life. How is it that life matters if, "The choice to live or die is pre-moral"?

Apparently what you mean is that your actions have consequences, but since there are no inherently good or evil consequences there are also no good or evil actions. If dying is as good as living, then your actions don't matter.

It makes a difference to my life whether I stay on the trail or walk off a cliff and whether I eat healthy food or poison.

And it makes a difference to my life whether I grow a beard or shave. What does this have to do with morality? Can you give a definition of morality?

Man's life is conditional and we aren't born knowing what's good for us and what's bad.

I don't think you even believe in good and bad. If you're not willing to say that death is bad, then what is?

We learn this from identifying and integrating the facts of reality, particularly those that pertain to our needs as living organisms. Or we could act without thinking, on the whim of the moment. which course do you think will bring more success at the project of living.

Why care about the "project of living?" I agree with you that eating food causes us to live longer, but you don't even think life is good; so why would eating food be good?

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I would not. The choice to live, yes, but not the values one needs. Those are objective. They are not a matter of preference.

Life is the value that all the other values are based on. I value life because I prefer it over death, so I value food because it prolongs life. The initial choice is what everything is based on. Valuing life is the foundation for everything because as you said, we wouldn't have any morality if we didn't.

 

[stevevw]

If there are any who don't they would be enough of an oddity that you should be able to point them out instead of just imagining that there might be."Who says that " is the dominant culture--as history demonstrates.

You are assuming that they think the same way you do in the first place. They may think your moral opposition is an oddity. The only reason you think that other cultures' morals are an oddity is because of the culture you live in and have been indoctrinated with. Many cultures foreign to the west think the west is wrong in their morality. That the west morality has brought destruction and to people and the earth and even their own culture. Any attempt at trying to talk other cultures our of their moral beliefs will not work.

Correct. Only the social history of human beings.

yes, the dominant culture and imposing the morality of the dominant culture on another culture contradicts moral relativity. It is a form of enculturation similar to how the US imposed its culture on the Hawaiians or any colonialization of indigenous peoples.

Sex only enters into morality to the extent that it is a factor in personal relationships.

Not really. It is associated with health and wellbeing in that young people are not mature enough to handle sexual relations, it is associated with a social policy such as with families or with population growth and resources. The issues of abortion, child welfare, domestic violence, rape culture, human trafficking, pedophilia, women's rights, etc. Sex is the basis for many moral issues in society.

Sex ed is about the science of human reproduction, not about what is OK and what is not OK. That should be taught somewhere else. At home or in Sunday School, perhaps.

That's a pretty nieve way to see sex ed nowadays. The moral values of society will determine what sex ed is taught and it can be about certain ideologies that push certain moral views. It can link in with areas that have moral implications such as sexualizing women, child and teen access to inappropriate content, gender, and sexual orientation, attitudes to sex including sex in the media as this influences behaviors. How to deal with these behaviors.

Whatever moral values people or society have is what sex ed is going to be passed on. If we take a couple of issues like if same-sex relations sex ed is taught or contraception like the morning after pill or abortion is options for young people then this assumes these are morally OK. As opposed to other groups in society that may have different moral beliefs on these things.

It will depend on the school or organization doing the teaching but there will be a different emphasis placed on certain practices being OK. The amount of info and time dedicated to them will depend on the institution's philosophical beliefs,. As we have sen with State-run schools they are being forced to take on certain ideologies when there are many parents who disagree.

Queensland mandating gender theory curriculum?
Queensland mandating gender theory curriculum?
Sexual Ideology Indoctrination: The Equality Act’s Impact on School Curriculum and Parental Rights
Sexual Ideology Indoctrination: The Equality Act’s Impact on School Curriculum and Parental Rights

Imparting knowledge of a particular sexual practice is not the same thing as "saying it's OK"

Once again a pretty nieve outlook. Young people are pretty impressionable. The fact is they mimic what is fed to them and if it is promoted by adults especially through the media and with icons they will copy the behavior. IE if so and so is doing it then it must be OK.[/QUOTE]

 

[Kylie]

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I'm curious to know what people think the relationship is between conscience and moral values, and the origin or source of conscience.

Oh, and just one more thing[/columbo], would it be reasonable to say that believers in objective morality think that their own morals necessarily correspond with those objective morals?

I disagree with the idea of objective morality. I think the commonalities that most people have in their individual sense of morality stems from the fact that we live in very similar cultures. If we take a person from a very different culture, I'm sure they would have similarly different morality.

 

[Jok]

I voted no. An atheist can love and care about things greatly, and although disturbed at their belief that everything will pass away they could still not consider the temporary love that they give as meaningless.

 

[stevevw]

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I'm curious to know what people think the relationship is between conscience and moral values, and the origin or source of conscience.

I think our conscience tells us what is right and wrong. It is interesting as our conscience will tell us that something isn't right even if we don't want to acknowledge that there is something wrong. We fight against our conscience like it is something independent of us.

Though this may be the case I don't think conscience alone is the only way we can determine morality. We need reasoning as well. So our conscience can tell us when something is not right and then we can reason to align this with what is morally right. This is because we are also susceptible to rationalizing the moral truth away based on personal motives and our experiences. If we have experienced emotional trauma then we can be vulnerable to unjustified shame and guilt which stems from a poor self-image not meeting our ideal image.

Oh, and just one more thing[/columbo], would it be reasonable to say that believers in objective morality think that their own morals necessarily correspond with those objective morals?

Once again I think our conscience dictates what is right and wrong. I believe that God's laws are written on our hearts and minds so I don't necessarily choose what God's law is all the time. The Bible says we have an inclination to not want to do God's will but rather our own will.

Sometimes doing the right thing means sacrificing your own will or wants so my own personal choices of morality don't always line up with what is objectively right. We can fall short of God's laws but in accepting Christ I know that I am weak and need to trust in Him to help me overcome my weaknesses as far as upholding God's laws.

 

[Moral Orel]

Alright. Fair question.

In my own personal axiological evaluation of the biblical God, the first thing that has ever crossed my mind, and one that is still the primary and foremost factor by which I approach this whole kind of question is my engagement with the literary figure of Jesus in the New Testament, and it is this that forms and informs my conceptual doorway, so to speak, to what I think is the goodness of God.

For the most part, it's the figure of Jesus that provides me a 'signifier' that God is "good," and I refuse to consider the concept of 'a God' separate from Jesus. I'm not going to assume the 'god of the pagan philosophers' will provide the necessary concepts by which I could even glean that God is "good." But I can read in the bible and hear from the Christian Churches that Jesus cared about people; and I think care is 'good.' He healed some people; and I think being beneficent and healing is 'good.' Jesus counseled people in relation to their social badness, and He forgave some people of their bad morals; and I think empathizing with people in their moral misdirections and sufferings is good. Jesus also is reported to have raised the dead, and if that's not an act of 'good,' then I don't know really know what is. Obviously, when Jesus did this, even literarily speaking, we're not talking some kind of childish, silly promotion of 'zombie-ism.'

Again, this sounds like you're listing things that you think are good and saying that Jesus is good because He has/did those things. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, by the way, but I don't know what else to glean from what appears to be a list of examples, more or less.

Not exactly. I'm saying that God's definition of "the Good" will be some set of values that make up who He is, as aspects inherent within His Being; they're not higher or lower than He is in His Being; they're aspects of His Being.

Hmmm... What's the difference between saying that they are "qualities he possesses" and saying they are "aspects of his being"? I feel this is a distinction you think is important, but I'm not understanding what that distinction is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They are objective. Is my need for food just a matter of preference? If I want to live, I need food, regardless of anyone thinking to the contrary. Now I might prefer the flavor of one food over another but my need for food is objective. Similarly my need for shelter, clothing, water to drink, work, tools, etc., is objective, i.e., is a fact of reality independent of anyone's thoughts to the contrary. Wouldn't you agree with me that all humans share some needs that are not merely a matter of opinion or preferrence?

OK, so your needs are the needs of all human beings, and you say that they are objective because those needs are objective, which suggests your morals should be the morals of all humans; but people do differ about how those needs may be morally fulfilled (and they differ over the morality of actions that are not related to their own survival needs - or do you think morals only apply to existential needs?).

If your morals are objective because they relate to objective needs, then other people's morals are objective when they relate to their objective needs, even if they differ from your morals. Is this what 'objective morality' means - that morals concerning objective needs are objective, even if they differ between individuals, so everyone can have their own objective morals?

If that isn't what you meant, please clarify.

What about morals unrelated to your existential needs, such as the morality of corporal and capital punishment, sexual behaviour, abortion, theft, lies, etc. - in what sense are they objective?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For Aquinas conscience binds, so we ought to act according to conscience. Further, since conscience is an intellectual phenomenon it is amenable to reason and deliberation. It is hard to imagine a case where conscience understood thusly contradicts a known objective moral truth. If the moral truth is truly known then it would not conflict with conscience, and if we are enticed to act contrary to a known moral truth then deliberation should have the power to lead us to act rightly.

OK. You seem to be saying that our conscience should support (and, if necessary, change to support) what we believe to be objective moral truth.

I'm not convinced that there are infallible routes to be had. There is no circumventing conscience. I think it is much like asking how one can be certain of objective truth. In general you can't, and even if you can the certainty won't be communicable anyway.

If we can't be certain that what we believe to be an objective moral truth really is an objective moral truth, and so can't be certain that someone else's belief that their differing moral truth is an objective moral truth is false, IOW if each person can believe their own moral truths are objective moral truths
then I don't see how that is significantly different from moral truths being subjective.

Note that I'm not suggesting normative or meta-ethical moral relativism - it is just a fact that people sincerely differ over some moral issues; it doesn't seem to make a difference whether any of them make claims to objective moral truth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think our conscience tells us what is right and wrong. It is interesting as our conscience will tell us that something isn't right even if we don't want to acknowledge that there is something wrong. We fight against our conscience like it is something independent of us.

Though this may be the case I don't think conscience alone is the only way we can determine morality. We need reasoning as well. So our conscience can tell us when something is not right and then we can reason to align this with what is morally right. This is because we are also susceptible to rationalizing the moral truth away based on personal motives and our experiences. If we have experienced emotional trauma then we can be vulnerable to unjustified shame and guilt which stems from a poor self-image not meeting our ideal image.

Once again I think our conscience dictates what is right and wrong. I believe that God's laws are written on our hearts and minds so I don't necessarily choose what God's law is all the time. The Bible says we have an inclination to not want to do God's will but rather our own will.

Sometimes doing the right thing means sacrificing your own will or wants so my own personal choices of morality don't always line up with what is objectively right. We can fall short of God's laws but in accepting Christ I know that I am weak and need to trust in Him to help me overcome my weaknesses as far as upholding God's laws.

Are you suggesting that, in any given situation, everyone's conscience will give the same moral guidance? So differences in moral responses to a given situation will necessarily be a result of some of them wilfully ignoring their consciences?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree with the idea of objective morality. I think the commonalities that most people have in their individual sense of morality stems from the fact that we live in very similar cultures. If we take a person from a very different culture, I'm sure they would have similarly different morality.

I broadly agree - the fundamental moral 'universals' seem to reflect the basics for a successful society or culture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Again, this sounds like you're listing things that you think are good and saying that Jesus is good because He has/did those things. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, by the way, but I don't know what else to glean from what appears to be a list of examples, more or less.

No. I'm saying that there is the set of values that the Bible confers as 'good' for our consideration, and this is separate from what I, by myself and existentially, will 'think' or 'have thought' makes a set of values for 'the good.'

Hmmm... What's the difference between saying that they are "qualities he possesses" and saying they are "aspects of his being"? I feel this is a distinction you think is important, but I'm not understanding what that distinction is.

I think you've misread my statement, but that my be due to my poor syntax. I wasn't trying to make a distinction between 'possessing qualities' and 'inherent aspects.' I was attempting to reiterate the same idea in different terms. I was trying to say that:

possessing qualities = inherent aspects

........... I'm not sure how to make my overall meaning clearer in all that I've been saying. But here, let me try it this way:

My modern American [set] of axiological values and ontological considerations about "the Good" [even that which I think I see in Jesus...]

≠​

The Biblical [set] set of axiological values and ontological considerations (i.e. they're partially foreign to me, even if there is some partial overlap)​

 

[Moral Orel]

No. I'm saying that there is the set of values that the Bible confers as 'good' for our consideration, and this is separate from what I, by myself and existentially, will 'think' or 'have thought' makes a set of values for 'the good.'

I think you've misread my statement, but that my be due to my poor syntax. I wasn't trying to make a distinction between 'possessing qualities' and 'inherent aspects.' I was attempting to reiterate the same idea in different terms. I was trying to say that:

possessing qualities = inherent aspects

........... I'm not sure how to make my overall meaning clearer in all that I've been saying. But here, let me try it this way:


My modern American [set] of axiological values and ontological considerations about "the Good" [even that which I think I see in Jesus...]
≠The Biblical [set] set of axiological values and ontological considerations (i.e. they're partially foreign to me, even if there is some partial overlap)

Okay, let's see. You would say that Jesus/God is good because He possesses good qualities, although identifying what those qualities are is difficult and differs to some degree between what you recognize and what the ancients recognized. For instance, justice is good, God is inherently just, so God is good. And further, you'd probably say that God possesses all of the good qualities.

 

[zippy2006]

OK. You seem to be saying that our conscience should support (and, if necessary, change to support) what we believe to be objective moral truth.

Yes, but conscience and moral beliefs were already tightly coupled from the beginning. The word "conscience" obviously becomes ambiguous at some point. Is all intuitive practical reasoning conscience? Could an impulsive, spur of the moment decision be thought to be based on conscience?

Conscience and moral beliefs mutually interact over time and shape one another. Indeed we have a duty to form our conscience so that it leads us correctly, and that is primarily done through moral reasoning and practice.

If we can't be certain that what we believe to be an objective moral truth really is an objective moral truth, and so can't be certain that someone else's belief that their differing moral truth is an objective moral truth is false, IOW if each person can believe their own moral truths are objective moral truths
then I don't see how that is significantly different from moral truths being subjective.

Again, I don't see the relevant difference between this and intellectual truth. There are intractable problems in science and metaphysics where people legitimately disagree down to brass tacks, yet those disciplines don't throw up their hands and draw the conclusion that truth is subjective, or that there simply is no scientific description of the phenomenon in question.

We would also have to ask what level of certainty is at stake. I think the certainty we are able to achieve in morality is basically the same as the certainty we are able to achieve in other disciplines. There are premises which are very certain (murder and theft are impermissible) and obscure questions which are not (e.g. is it permissible to cryogenically freeze human eggs en masse?). All the same, logical-deductive certainty of the mathematical proof variety is not possible in questions of morals (or any practical endeavor, even applied mathematics).

 

[Speedwell]

You are assuming that they think the same way you do in the first place. They may think your moral opposition is an oddity. The only reason you think that other cultures' morals are an oddity is because of the culture you live in and have been indoctrinated with. Many cultures foreign to the west think the west is wrong in their morality. That the west morality has brought destruction and to people and the earth and even their own culture. Any attempt at trying to talk other cultures our of their moral beliefs will not work.

yes, the dominant culture and imposing the morality of the dominant culture on another culture contradicts moral relativity.

That is fatuous nonsense. It's only possible because of moral subjectivity.

Not really. It is associated with health and wellbeing in that young people are not mature enough to handle sexual relations, it is associated with a social policy such as with families or with population growth and resources. The issues of abortion, child welfare, domestic violence, rape culture, human trafficking, pedophilia, women's rights, etc. Sex is the basis for many moral issues in society.

That's a pretty nieve way to see sex ed nowadays. The moral values of society will determine what sex ed is taught and it can be about certain ideologies that push certain moral views. It can link in with areas that have moral implications such as sexualizing women, child and teen access to inappropriate content, gender, and sexual orientation, attitudes to sex including sex in the media as this influences behaviors. How to deal with these behaviors.

Yes, all those things are facts about sex that young people should know.

Whatever moral values people or society have is what sex ed is going to be passed on. If we take a couple of issues like if same-sex relations sex ed is taught or contraception like the morning after pill or abortion is options for young people then this assumes these are morally OK. As opposed to other groups in society that may have different moral beliefs on these things.

So what's your alternative? Pretend to the young that these things don't exist?

It will depend on the school or organization doing the teaching but there will be a different emphasis placed on certain practices being OK. The amount of info and time dedicated to them will depend on the institution's philosophical beliefs,. As we have sen with State-run schools they are being forced to take on certain ideologies when there are many parents who disagree.

You mean like teaching facts about LGBT? Not a moral issue. If LGBT is being taught as a moral issue in a sex-ed class then the class needs to be revamped. But teaching about sex is not the same as thinking all that is being taught is OK.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but conscience and moral beliefs were already tightly coupled from the beginning. The word "conscience" obviously becomes ambiguous at some point. Is all intuitive practical reasoning conscience? Could an impulsive, spur of the moment decision be thought to be based on conscience?

I was taught (Catholic background) that your conscience is a kind of moral intuition, telling what you feel to be right or wrong about your conduct (or intent) rather than what you'd like or what you rationalise (although, obviously, you can rationalise why you feel that way). But I can understand that there are other interpretations.

Again, I don't see the relevant difference between this and intellectual truth. There are intractable problems in science and metaphysics where people legitimately disagree down to brass tacks, yet those disciplines don't throw up their hands and draw the conclusion that truth is subjective, or that there simply is no scientific description of the phenomenon in question.

Clearly there are subjective truths that depend on individuals and objective truths that depend on formal axiomatic systems or states of affairs in the world. We can only guarantee to be 100% certain of the formal truths (i.e. truths by definition).

We would also have to ask what level of certainty is at stake. I think the certainty we are able to achieve in morality is basically the same as the certainty we are able to achieve in other disciplines. There are premises which are very certain (murder and theft are impermissible) and obscure questions which are not (e.g. is it permissible to cryogenically freeze human eggs en masse?). All the same, logical-deductive certainty of the mathematical proof variety is not possible in questions of morals (or any practical endeavor, even applied mathematics).

Even the premises that you call very certain can be hedged around with uncertainty, both in the definitions and their interpretation or application to particular circumstances.

 

[zippy2006]

I was taught (Catholic background) that your conscience is a kind of moral intuition, telling what you feel to be right or wrong about your conduct (or intent) rather than what you'd like or what you rationalise (although, obviously, you can rationalise why you feel that way). But I can understand that there are other interpretations.

I don't really disagree with that. My point was just that it can sometimes be difficult to locate conscience in practice. We have all sorts of internal feelings and inclinations, and it may not be obvious where conscience begins and ends. On the other hand, in many cases there is clarity.

Clearly there are subjective truths that depend on individuals and objective truths that depend on formal axiomatic systems or states of affairs in the world. We can only guarantee to be 100% certain of the formal truths (i.e. truths by definition).

We can be 100% certain of formal (analytic) truths, but I wouldn't group in "states of affairs in the world." As soon as you try to apply an axiomatic system you've lost that claim to certainty.

Even the premises that you call very certain can be hedged around with uncertainty, both in the definitions and their interpretation or application to particular circumstances.

Sure, but the spectrum holds. The very firmest moral truths are things like, "Do good and avoid evil," where good and evil are, at this stage, defined according to the agent's perception. Yet that is all but analytic.

 

[stevevw]

That is fatuous nonsense. It's only possible because of moral subjectivity.

I said that some cultures have different moral beliefs like the example I gave of those who believe in female circumcision and that the west should not criticize or force their moral opinions on other cultures as this is contradictory to moral relativism. You said the west has the right to dictate to other cultures about morality because it is based on the harm it does. I then said who said that harm should be the measure of moral wrong.

You then repeated the same false analogy in saying that anyone who doesn't see 'harm' as being morally wrong would be an oddity. I was pointing out again that claiming that harm is the measure and that anyone who doesn't agree is an oddity is only your and the west opinion about morality. You are assuming that harm should be the measure of morality in the first place which is a fallacy of a false analogy.

It also contradicts what relative morality is about which is to accept and tolerate other cultures' relative morality because it comes from a different relative standpoint and to them, they think it is OK even if you think they should see things your way. In fact, it is dictating to them like the dominant culture knows best and should consume the other cultures into their morality. That is also what the west says is morally wrong. So it's a hypocritical standpoint.

I then said but the fact the west thinks that these acts by other cultures are barbaric and wrong (which I agree) shows that they are not really taking a relative moral stand as explained above but rather an objective one. That all cultures and everyone should conform to the one moral position on this and there is no room for subjective or relative morality is taking an objective moral position.

The only in believing that there is only relative morality has done is to make it OK for other cultures to have these barbaric moral views. All the west is doing is being objective while thinking they are being subjective. If they truly thought relative morality was the only way cultures can view morality then they would not be imposing their relative moral view on another culture with a different relative moral view because they are contradictory to relative morality. In other words, the west professes relativity to be PC but truly believes in objectivity when it comes to morality.

Yes, all those things are facts about sex that young people should know.

And all those facts are associated with moral values. So whatever moral values you have about these things is what you are going to teach young people.

So what's your alternative? Pretend to the young that these things don't exist?

No it is about a balanced approach. Don't push certain ideologies over others. But realistically I don't think that this will happen. The problem with only having subjective morality and believing that morality is not objective is that subjective morality always ends up with whoever has the power will dictate what is right and wrong because it is not always about reasoning but about position and power and whoever can make the best case regardless of the truth.

You mean like teaching facts about LGBT? Not a moral issue. If LGBT is being taught as a moral issue in a sex-ed class then the class needs to be revamped. But teaching about sex is not the same as thinking all that is being taught is OK.

It depends on whether something is a fact and as we know with some ideologies facts go out the window and it's more about appealing to emotion. As we know with morality feelings are not a good way to determine what is right and wrong. The point is there is a lot of different views about this but certain ideologies are being pushed regardless.

That is a form of objective morality anyway dictated through certain people in positions of influence. But it may not be the moral truth and what people really think is morally right. So having the power and position can allow certain views to be promoted over others which shows how subjective morality is not a good system for what may be morally right even based on using harm as a measure. What is harmful or not is also a subjective measure that shows how arbitrary subjective morality can be.

 

[stevevw]

Are you suggesting that, in any given situation, everyone's conscience will give the same moral guidance? So differences in moral responses to a given situation will necessarily be a result of some of them wilfully ignoring their consciences?

Yes. But I wouldn't say in any given circumstance as some situations are more complicated and need more reasoning. But on many big issues yes we all know what is right and wrong. Anyone who tried to claim that it was OK to abuse a child or take what was rightfully someone's property for no good reason for example we can rightfully say is just plain wrong and if they cannot see that they are either unsound or are denying the truth.

 

[Moral Orel]

I said that some cultures have different moral beliefs like the example I gave of those who believe in female circumcision and that the west should not criticize or force their moral opinions on other cultures as this is contradictory to moral relativism. You said the west has the right to dictate to other cultures about morality because it is based on the harm it does. I then said who said that harm should be the measure of moral wrong.

You then repeated the same false analogy in saying that anyone who doesn't see 'harm' as being morally wrong would be an oddity. I was pointing out again that claiming that harm is the measure and that anyone who doesn't agree is an oddity is only your and the west opinion about morality. You are assuming that harm should be the measure of morality in the first place which is a fallacy of a false analogy.

It also contradicts what relative morality is about which is to accept and tolerate other cultures' relative morality because it comes from a different relative standpoint and to them, they think it is OK even if you think they should see things your way. In fact, it is dictating to them like the dominant culture knows best and should consume the other cultures into their morality. That is also what the west says is morally wrong. So it's a hypocritical standpoint.

I then said but the fact the west thinks that these acts by other cultures are barbaric and wrong (which I agree) shows that they are not really taking a relative moral stand as explained above but rather an objective one. That all cultures and everyone should conform to the one moral position on this and there is no room for subjective or relative morality is taking an objective moral position.

The only in believing that there is only relative morality has done is to make it OK for other cultures to have these barbaric moral views. All the west is doing is being objective while thinking they are being subjective. If they truly thought relative morality was the only way cultures can view morality then they would not be imposing their relative moral view on another culture with a different relative moral view because they are contradictory to relative morality. In other words, the west professes relativity to be PC but truly believes in objectivity when it comes to morality.

Don't confuse moral relativity with moral subjectivity; they aren't even close to the same thing.