You have made many contradicting statements, you enjoy living in a society where there is a moral imperative to be good to one another, in your enjoyment of adhering to the abstract you betray yourself, you enjoy:
". . .that each individual ought to be capable of realizing his own ethical maxim, then I must as a natural consequence also maintain that each individual ought to be protected against the imposition of another ethical maxim; this latter claim can only be accomplished with recourse to the universal dimension."
This is why you have to be consigned to the off-topic section, because there is an objective standard in logic and science, you just refuse to adhere to it.Well, from the commonly-accepted perspective of an assumed objective reality, I don't think there's any question that moral relativism most accurately reflects the situation. The absence of an objective standard, coupled with individual differences (neither of which can be denied), necessitates this position.
Make an argument as I have been attempting to do for a soft consequentialism that prizes cultural capital in the form of whatever existential (personal differences) people currently hold, as Brim would say at least that is an argument:
Or confine yourself to a faith based moral relativism that is an imperative to only do what 'feels right' even though really you're a universalist because you assume the sun will come up tomorrow.Marx believes social revolution is a morally justifiable goal because [...] it is a necessary condition of general freedom. Then to the extent that some act n is causative of social revolution, it is to that extent and for that reason morally justifiable. The statement [...] is consistent with utilitarianism (if ‘ought’ is qualified by prima facie) in case the social revolution is in someone’s interest. Marx believes acts causative of social revolution are in the interests of the proletariat; to that extent his position is compatible with utilitarianism [and, I would also add, ethical universalism] (1973: 189).