Philosophy - Two Parts Short Assignment

PART B Please response to these two original posts below. When responding to these posts, please either expand the thought, add additional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why. Remember that we are after reasons and arguments, and not simply the statement of opinions.

Original Post 1 What is moral expressivism, and what does it say about the nature of moral claims?

Moral expressivism, also known as emotivism, is a form of moral scepticism where moral claims are believed to not express any form of truth or facts. Instead, claims that are made are based on one's own emotions, values, and preferences. Stating that something is wrong or an action shouldn't be done means that the one making that statement disagrees with whatever topic or action is being talked about and expressing their disagreement with it. And if they follow up with something that they think should be done instead, they once again are simply projecting their values onto the situation. This means that any sort of claim that someone could possibly make can never be universally considered right or wrong. The mere nature of moral claims stems from one's own belief and what they personally think is right or wrong.

Original Post 2 Why is moral relativism not a way of respecting the moral claims of those who you disagree with?

Moral relativism is the idea that there are no objective set of moral truths and that morals are relative to particular cultures or groups. Therefore, individuals with opposing views could both be correct in their moral views relative to their particular moral system. One can argue that adopting the view of moral relativism would allow you to simply respect the opinions of others you may disagree with by recognizing the existence of different moral systems. You can respect someone's opinions without having to agree with them. 

On the other hand, opponents argue that by respecting others' opinions that you disagree with is, in a way, disrespecting their personal opinion. In reality, not everyone is a moral relativist and won't always "agree to disagree." In many disagreements, individuals argue for their view as the objective moral truth. And by simply accepting their view on the basis that it is merely a relative moral view, you are disrespecting their argument as an objective moral view and not giving it as much merit as a standalone claim. Instead, you are respecting their right to have that opinion rather than accepting and respecting the opinion itself which is disrespectful to the individual trying to promote or argue for the truth of their opinion.