As I understand it, descriptive relativism, acknowledging that there are very many disagreements about morality, ones which are often practically intractable, feeds into moral skepticism. As I'd assume that, when a moral dilemma usually does not end in agreement, it becomes more difficult to argue against epistemological moral skepticism, for moral knowledge or belief.
I wondered how particularism, which I understand as idea that there are no moral "principles" and moral perfection would be better conceived of as a special form of responsiveness to the particular situations, fares with skeptical discourse similar to the above.
I have no idea at all, and imagine it could go either way. On the one hand, without principles agreement on moral questions might be even trickier to come by. Yet on the other hand, that may just matter less.
I'm asking less because I'm struggling to work out right from wrong, than I am struggling to work out why it is that the majority of (seemingly) right thinking people seem to embrace decisions for moral reasons that seem almost entirely vacuous to me.
Just to take a (pitiful) example: someone asking for help from another only to meet the claim that, that person would feel uncomfortable doing so. Or that help might lead to more group conflict.
Both claims seem philosophically vacuous, as well as idiosyncratic. I just wondered why anyone believes this stuff. It makes me want to throw up my hands and say that there is no moral knowledge and let's hope no-one sets fire to anything.