The Collapse of Moral Relativism

Alleukemist. Well, a stupid follower does not mean a leader is also stupid.

Reaganx. I wonder how you'd react if this moron were a fan of Hitler. I bet the reaction would be different. But there isn't much difference between Mao and Hitler.

Alleukemist. Unfortunately, there has not been any court decision on Mao or Stalin, for instance. This is in contrast to official conviction of Nazism.
It is unpleasant for me to realize that some close supporter of Obama praises Mao, but formally she can do that. And again, this does not in any way undermine Obama's reputation.

Reaganx. Double standards par excellence. Since when have court decisions become criteria of truth and morality? Even if all courts of the world declare Mao to be a kind-hearted freedom fighter, he will still remain a bloodthirsty mass murderer, and his supporters (and supporters of his supporters, in Obama’s case) will remain scumbags, morons or both. Same as supporters of Hitler.

Alleukemist. Perhaps I need to clarify myself. Moral judgments are by their nature relative. First of all, for our judgments to be similar, we have to have the same moral scale (if not, one can call the other scumbag). Secondly, the scale has to be applied to a particular situation correctly, i.e. with good reasoning and with adequate knowledge of facts. The person you were referring to probably shares our moral values, but she either lacks adequate knowledge of Mao's history, or fails to realize suffering of the oppressed. Yes, this makes her a moron. Is she the first one? Mr. Reagan made awful mistakes of judgment from time to time, by the way.
If she knowingly praised a perpetrator declared guilty by the court of humanity, she would have to be considered an immoral person because she would not have to make the right judgment herself - it was made for her. But who officially charged Mao? Chinese have not. And if they still kind of praise him, she may think he was a great leader. It is a mistake, but not fatal.
> and supporters of his supporters, in Obama’s case
I do not understand why a supporter should share guilt from a misdemeanor of another supporter. Maybe some Reagan's supporter wanted to see Russia in nuclear fire. Does that make every Reagan's supporter an insane bloodthirsty idiot?

Reaganx. The purpose of morality is survival. Some actions in objective reality lead to survival, while others result in extinction. Since survival and extinction are determined by objective facts of reality, morality (i.e. true morality) cannot be relative. It is objective.
You should be consistent in your relativism. Should morality be determined by a national, foreign or international court? If national, should decisions made by Nazi and Stalinist courts be considered standards of morality? If you think they should be international, why are they better than national? And, anyway, why are court decisions a better standard of morality than, say, individual moral judgments?
A reply to any of those questions would presuppose some degree of implicit moral objectivity (though false). If your relativism were consistent, you would just think that any moral judgment is as good as any other, and that's it. According to consistent relativism, a court decision is not a better standard of morality than any other opinion. Moreover, consistent relativism renders morality null and void, since it sanctions ANY morality, which is basically NO morality at all. But, as any inconsistent relativist, you mix your subjectivism with a bit of mysticism, since, for you, court decisions are somehow exempt from the relativist principle. Courts apparently have the supernatural ability to cognize moral truths, while mere mortals don't.
To demonstrate the collapse of your position, let me illustrate it with an example. Suppose a "court of humanity" proclaims that cannibalism, rape, pedophilia, human sacrifices and the slaughter of innocent people are moral. Do you think it would be ok for everyone to comply with this decision?

A separate thread:

Baron. Obama is an afro-american citizen of US, and you write bad things about him?! I am serious, you can be punished by USA officials for this statement by depriving of a right to enter USA forever. And EU/UK immigration servises also will not be indifferent.

Reaganx. I’ll tell them I’ve recanted, kiss the holy mummified testicles of Martin Luther King and partake of the sacred urine of Reverend Wright to atone for my racist sins.