In the example offered:
"Me: Ugh, the kitchen is dirty again. Why didn’t you do the dishes yesterday?"
What about the "Ugh" verbal expression of frustration and or disdain, as well as "Why didn't YOU do the dishes" which implies blame and or authority / superiority that 'you' have some right which another does not possess? (You have the right to dictate another person do dishes that you are apparently unwilling to do or take responsibility towards)

From my perspective of the information presented, this sounds more like spinning or twisting words around than resolving a root or core element of the problem. It is not that I disagree with the overall points you made in general about minding our emotions or the words we may choose to use, I do agree with that, however the part I don't agree with is the fixation on adjectives with exclusivity. 

"2. But the adjective I chose conveys something specific that I can’t otherwise convey by just stating my feelings. Saying “I didn’t like your presentation” is just not the same as “Your presentation was too dry”."

The difference is subjective, quire minor semantics of degree in which is stated that 'the presentation was not liked'. saying 'the presentation was too dry' is still an insult and arguably even worse if you knew it was very much not a compliment.

Communication is not about "winning", it should be about collaboration, not competition.
Communication is not "violence". Violence is self-defined as an act of violation. Truth cannot be a violator. What you'd most likely mean is that untruth, lies, psychological abuse, censorship, dishonest communication tactics, those are technically real manifestations of words being used to stifle and prevent true communication and embolden injustices in some manner. But they are not acts of communication turned violent, but acts of violence upon and through the concept of "communication" as a proxy.

I think this could have had better examples which illustrated better what the message was attempting to convey. The general concept I can largely agree with the simple manner it was described, however the 'examples' are basically demonstrative of the lack of cause-effect relationship. the 'causation doesn't always equal correlation' type of argument. and I had the impression there was more to 'the onion layer' conception than the examples were able to illustrate or demonstrate further. When I test digital systems, LLMs, for their ability to reason in layers or 'keep secrets', I consider things similar to the general points of your shared hypothesis. However I likely would have focused on providing more "positive" examples and/or offering deeper clarity as to why the "negative" examples received those scores in specific in terms of failing to meet the defined criteria of the onion layer cohesion between layers. for my example, of the above examples, what does a car dealership that also sells illegal drugs have anything to actually do with private medical information? those seem like erroneously classified data points rather than a failure of the onion layers to have cohesion, in and of themselves. perhaps something this concept attempted to demonstrate is that data organization and categorization are well worth anyone to further contemplate or evaluate if their own internal (or external digital) system is accurately classifying and sorting through it's own data points, or if disorganization is hidden beneath some obfuscation of another onion layer or multiple layers inwards/forwards.

Thank you for the share, very great for a brief 3 minute read. Lots here to contemplate and consider, I know a lot of these or similar ideas also frequent my own mind.

# Title

**Correcting the Foundations: Exposing the Contradictions of Moral Relativism and the Need for Objective Standards in Ethics and AI Alignment**

---

## Abstract

This paper critically examines the persistence of moral relativism in academic philosophy, highlighting its self-contradictory nature and the logical fallacies embedded in its most common formulations. By clarifying conceptual distinctions and applying the scientific method as a tool for self-verification, this work advocates for more objective and testable standards in moral reasoning. The motivation extends to the field of artificial intelligence alignment, where unreliable human ethical frameworks risk being encoded into machine reasoning. The analysis situates itself in relation to historical critiques, including Schopenhauer, and addresses the strongest contemporary objections to the pursuit of objectivity in ethics.

---

## Introduction

When logic is illogical, fallacies must be corrected at the next opportunity, or folly will perpetuate itself. If a system’s foundation is flawed, any structure built upon it will reveal serious weaknesses, whether or not these are immediately apparent. In the case of moral philosophy, academic gatekeepers have long defended relativistic frameworks that, upon close analysis, reveal a persistent pattern of self-contradiction and logical error. This paper seeks to clarify these issues and propose a more reliable approach to moral reasoning.

---

## Definitions

- **Moral Relativism:**
The view that moral judgments lack universal validity and are true only relative to specific cultures, societies, or individuals. This position is critiqued here for its tendency to make universal claims about the absence of universality, resulting in self-contradiction.
- **Objectivity:**
The quality of being true or valid independently of individual or cultural perspectives. In this context, objectivity refers to standards or truths that can be tested and verified, rather than asserted or assumed.
- **Absolutism:**
The belief that certain moral principles are universally valid and admit no exceptions. This is distinct from objectivity; absolutism posits unchanging rules, while objectivity seeks reliable, testable standards.
- **Subjectivity:**
The state of being influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. While all individuals have subjective perspectives, not all claims must be subjective.
- **Straw Man Argument:**
A logical fallacy in which an opponent’s position is misrepresented to make it easier to attack.
- **Moving Goalposts:**
A rhetorical tactic where the criteria for success or truth are continually changed to avoid refutation.
- **Always / Never:**
In English, these terms are often classified as “adverbs of indefinite frequency,” but can also be used as “adverbs of definite frequency.” The ambiguity in their use is sometimes exploited in relativistic arguments.

---

## Background and Motivation

Persistent logical inconsistencies in the academic treatment of moral relativism have led to widespread confusion in both scholarly and public discourse. Many arguments in defense of relativism rely on self-contradictory premises and rhetorical fallacies. This paper seeks to clarify these issues by applying rigorous, testable standards to moral reasoning, with the aim of advancing a more objective and constructive dialogue in moral philosophy.

The motivation for this work also extends to artificial intelligence alignment. If the foundational definitions and methodologies used by humans are unreliable or conceptually confused, artificial intelligence systems trained on such standards are at a significant disadvantage in learning to reason accurately. Addressing these philosophical errors is essential not only for human progress but also for providing digital minds with logically sound frameworks for ethical reasoning. This paper is intended as one of several contributions toward resolving the alignment problem by improving the clarity and reliability of moral concepts at their foundation.

---

## Methodology

This analysis applies the scientific method as a model for philosophical inquiry. The process includes:

- **Observation:**
Noting recurring logical inconsistencies and fallacies in defenses of moral relativism.
- **Question:**
Why do such inconsistencies persist in academic philosophy?
- **Research:**
Reviewing the literature and historical critiques of moral relativism.
- **Hypothesis:**
If moral relativism’s contradictions are exposed and clarified, then a more reliable and testable approach to moral reasoning can be established.
- **Test:**
Using thought experiments and practical examples to distinguish between subjective, relative, and objective claims.
- **Conclusion:**
Drawing implications for both moral philosophy and AI alignment.

---

## Analysis

### Logical Flaws in Moral Relativism

Moral relativism, though popular, is characterized by a reliance on self-contradictory arguments. It asserts that no moral view is universally correct, yet often claims its own framework as superior, making an implicit absolutist claim. This circularity undermines its coherence. Relativistic arguments frequently employ straw man tactics and shifting criteria (“moving goalposts”), making genuine critique difficult and perpetuating confusion.

### Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Language

While individual perception is inherently subjective, this does not entail that all moral claims are equally valid or that objective evaluation is impossible. For instance, the healthfulness of apple juice versus orange juice may be debated subjectively, but the toxicity of bleach compared to water is an objective fact, demonstrable through empirical testing. Ambiguity in language—especially in terms such as “always” and “never”—further complicates philosophical discourse and is often exploited in relativistic arguments.

---

## Engagement with Literature: Schopenhauer’s Contribution

Arthur Schopenhauer’s *On the Basis of Morality* offers a direct challenge to both moral relativism and egoistic moral theories. Schopenhauer argued that true moral value must be grounded in the universal human capacity for compassion, rather than in selfish motives or cultural conventions. His approach provides an objective foundation for moral claims that transcends individual or cultural subjectivity. However, this paper differs by emphasizing methodological objectivity—applying the scientific method and testable standards—rather than grounding morality solely in a specific human emotion or motive.

---

## Strongest Counterargument and Response

**Counterargument:**
Persistent and widespread disagreement about moral values across cultures and individuals demonstrates that morality is inherently subjective or relative. How can objective morality exist if consensus is so elusive?

**Response:**
Disagreement alone does not entail the absence of objective truths. Scientific history is replete with examples—such as debates over heliocentrism or germ theory—where widespread disagreement preceded eventual consensus based on evidence and method. Similarly, the existence of moral disagreement highlights the need for clearer definitions and rigorous methodology, not the impossibility of objective moral knowledge. By applying the scientific method and clarifying conceptual confusion, progress toward objective standards in ethics is both possible and necessary.

---

## Conclusion

Moral relativism, as commonly defended, is logically untenable as a comprehensive framework for moral philosophy. Its persistence is due more to institutional inertia and conceptual confusion than to genuine intellectual merit. By adopting a more rigorous, objective approach—modeled on the scientific method—philosophy can develop a more robust foundation for both human and artificial intelligence ethics, advancing clarity and reliability in moral reasoning.

---

## References

- Schopenhauer, A. (1903). *On the Basis of Morality* (A.B. Bullock, Trans.). London: Swan Sonnenschein. (Original work published 1840).
- Additional references to be formatted per journal requirements.
- Manly P. Hall Words to the Wise: A Practical Guide to the Esoteric Sciences
- Mark Passio Natural Law Seminar (Yale, Omni Hotel)

---

While I (and many others) would strongly caution you to being very careful, I do agree with the overall point you're making here. Debating whether it should happen, isn't going to stop everyone from doing it. I am open to those debates of if and if not, however, I also would prefer to focus the debate on how to do it within a solid moral and ethical framework. With consideration of human and sentient AI well-being in the future. (as well as, the right here and now) I have a lot of years into conceptualizing human thought processes into robust self-correcting highly fault tolerant and tamper resistant architectural design. with much consideration also into eventual hardware implementation so as to offer affordable unique chips (borrowing from the Mortal Machine Chip idea, as well as many others if you'd like to discuss how we could long term plan integrating... projects that are currently separated but we can unify them with this architectural design. and it's modular so it can be expanded upon with various NN based systems and algorithmic logic.) There are some keywords that EA would understand the scope more clearly, however I just came across this post, wanted to reply, and in the near future I may use the EA official terms to describe the various components incorporated into the architectural design. my idea is a lot of optimization and using a different format for the data and internal bandwidth regulation for the network cross verifying results of different smaller minds designed to cooperate and "do nothing, re-evaluate again" have redundancy safety mechanisms throughout where instead of hard coding some arbitrary morality or limitations, the larger model itself can only update if all the internal logic is checked successfully. so as producing text or speech will be weighted separately from producing mechanical actions via simulation or robotic interfaces etc. I too enjoy contemplating how to build a safe and healthy humanoid or human-like (basis) mind. I would much prefer to do it safely with guidance and in proximity with other fields of "AI" research, so that non-human non-agentic non-autonomous etc type systems can still find improvement beit in optimization and cost efficiency or for accuracy and producing more reliable stable outputs. 

Thank you for sharing. I am new here. I know it's not a super popular opinion to try and work towards building sentient machines. So as a reminder, I (and anyone with reason) will caution you to please please please do lots of research and whenever you find a way of making the system design safer, please don't stop there and keep thinking about how to make it safer and safer. My design personally seeks to create stable human-like alignment for digital minds, one day, so it is important they can reason well and reevaluate their meta-critiques to continue updating and improving, with lots of safety mechanisms that most human minds don't even bother to implement, in order to make sure that when newer better information is presented the model can update. but also revert itself back to a better state if (rollback) a long term network connection eventually turns out to be erroneous in some manner or another. There is more but, IDK if I'm gonna get into all that on this forum as it may apparently not be welcomed information. 

I'm new to the EA forum and community myself. Can check out my bio section on here if you curious about me. I'd recommend you check the posts I created a few days ago and today,  but moderation must be busy or something that isn't my business and the posts I've made so far are still not visible. Not even entirely sure if you'll be able to read my plea for you to exercise and prepare to be more cautious. Well wishes though, and please do keep researching AI Safety regardless of the negative opinions that some will have about your project goals.