@Wakanyugi, let me start by restating what you've said.

1. The greatest desirable state of being is that of self government

2. That there exists a means of attaining such a state and that a good and moral means excludes coercion

3. Some try to 'truncate' the means by coercion and extreme measures and this constitutes terror, which is immoral

4. That @tycho uses coercive and extreme means and that tycho is a terrorist

Given that we already have agreement on the singularity of the multiple, and apparently contradictory, then we must ask whether seeing and understanding this doesn't in fact, confer autonomy, and the experience and action executed to enable one to see this unity and multiplicity is in fact the moral and good means of attaining autonomy.

While on the other hand coercion must do away with any possibility for self autonomy.

So in this case moral relativism doesn't apply. The moral law then applies in the manner of 'doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you' or 'love your neighbor as thy self'.

The freedom fighter, in his truncation of the moral way ends up negating it. Albert Camus has a clear argument on this when he shows 'metaphysical rebellion' as the force behind terror in the revolutionary.

And in extension even the ISIL for example, show the marks of metaphysical rebellion even despite using religious language and belief. The allied forces against ISIL are also therefore also immoral in equal measure in that they too are metaphysical rebels.

I'm trying to show now the practical implications of how this kind of thinking can be applied now when terror is around us. By translating the 'moral' as in this context, to all our activities irrespective of cultural and physical variety terror can be truly 'overcome'.

As for @tycho being a terrorist, or others, I will say that's the initial state of Man; something to be overcome.

I'm defeated.

Tycho:

That you take this stuff seriously is quite clear from many of your posts. But you must not become so serious as to forget to relax. That was my earlier point.

As to relativism, I thought we laid this one to rest. I restate:

The illusion of 'non-unity' which we all subscribe to makes it almost impossible to have absolutes. If you are a rational person you surely have to admit that any absolute remains so only as long it is not disproven or superseded. In a Universe of 'all that is' anything and everything is possible. This is my principle argument for relativism.

I defined morality as the setting of boundaries. You don't have to agree with this but let as agree that morality is about classes of belief and behavior. Say: good, bad, and neutral. A good typology but, my point, not an absolute. Every one of my moral positions has been overthrown or severely shaken at some point, something that I suspect will happen to any human being with time.

Were you to ask me to state my strongest moral position it would be in the desired autonomy of all human beings. 'Terrorism' or the attempt to take away this right through coercion, would therefore rank as an act of great immorality. But even this is a relative position.

We are all guilty of 'terrorism.' Just read any sample of posts on Wazua, the majority are of people like you and I trying to coerce people into a certain point of view or behavior.

Strange because, I suspect, we would hate it if we ever got our way. But that is a fight for another day.

Relax Tycho. I only accused you of intellectual terrorism. And I am not the only one, as many Wazuans who have protested the way you tax our poor mental faculties clearly shows.

I see you are still tenaciously clinging to your flimsy intellectual absolute, which makes me wonder why?

To insist that something can't be disproven implies that you have plumbed and discounted all possibilities in the Universe over all of time, space and the zillion permutations of relationships between 'things and events.' Even Scientists admit that the so called immutable laws of physics may not apply in some parts of our strange Universe, for instance in black holes.

Let me make understanding of this matter easier for you.

1. You're saying that you can have a relative who's not part of your (extended) family.

2.

tycho: is everything relative @Wakanyugi?

Wakanyugi: Yes. Everything is relative.

tycho: Is your response relative?

Wakanyugi: Yes. The statement that ALL is relative, is relative and not absolute. And it stands even in a black hole.

tycho: Ah! Then that's sufficient reason to relax.

Wakanyugi: 'relax' is also relative and not absolute.

tycho: Then relativism is an absolute?

Wakanyugi: No. relativism is only relative. And stop pestering me with your relatives. Because EVERYTHING is only relative. You terrorist! That's another relative.