system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What is it called when you do not beleive in objective moral truths?

I beleive that we should adhear to certain moral principles such as do not cause unnecessary harm, destruction of the enviroment and do not enslave people and take away their freedom, and health. But I do not beleive these moral ideals can be validated as if they are the ultimate truths to the question of morality. I beleive you cannot answer the question "is this act morally good?" unless you define the parameters of what moral goodness. What is the name of my stance on morality and on this type of question/answer?
gpt
If you mean that while *you* believe we should not cause unnecessary harm, should not enslave people, etc., you recognize that *other people* do not believe this, and *you don't regard your beliefs about this as any more legitimate than these other people's beliefs*, presumably the natural comparison follows, and you think moral judgments are true only in a subjective sense. Popularly, the expression *moral relativism* is often used to describe this sort of position.

What sort of position you hold on meta-ethics would depend on your position on other matters. For example, if you think that moral propositions in the strict sense ought to be objective, i.e. that strictly speaking your judgment that say "we should not cause unnecessary harm" is only properly moral if it is valid for other people, then presumably you think that all properly moral judgments are false (i.e., there is no statement which both provides such a properly moral [viz., objective] judgment and is true)--and you might then be what philosophers call an "error theorist".