Your comment is that people can believe things are moral, that lead you to do horrible things, because relativistic morals make you susceptible to misinformation. You then say this isn’t a good operating procedure because of this susceptibility, thus your morals can be twisted to justify horrible things, like killing people out of a sense of righteousness. Then you say that if your moral baseline isn’t an unshakable belief, an axiom, based on empathy, you can’t understand what the person believes.
The first part is true. However, how you present that last two sentences make it look like you are saying this is not good, and that having adamant morals, founded on empathy, is your understanding of a moral standing, and a better way of operating than relativistic models, which can be manipulated by bad input, and produce bad output.
Your comment is that people can believe things are moral, that lead you to do horrible things, because relativistic morals make you susceptible to misinformation. You then say this isn’t a good operating procedure because of this susceptibility, thus your morals can be twisted to justify horrible things, like killing people out of a sense of righteousness. Then you say that if your moral baseline isn’t an unshakable belief, an axiom, based on empathy, you can’t understand what the person believes.
The first part is true. However, how you present that last two sentences make it look like you are saying this is not good, and that having adamant morals, founded on empathy, is your understanding of a moral standing, and a better way of operating than relativistic models, which can be manipulated by bad input, and produce bad output.
Would you say this is a correct interpretation?