Originally posted by googlefudge
This is an interesting topic I want to take some time on...
But my initial response that you might consider is that i think you have an excluded middle here.
I believe that morality is objective, rather than subjective... I do not however believe in 'absolute' morality.
I will go into this in more detail when I get the time to do this properly ...[text shortened]... abels... And whether you might consider objective morality as being different from absolute.
I see the same distinction and have seen it expressed in books on philosophy.
X-axis: objective - subjective
y-axis: absolute - relative
Therse are words and the definition of words is a convention. But here is one approach:
"In conversations with apologists, it seems like these two sets of terms are mistaken thus making the conversations run in circles and misunderstandings that could be avoided if only we agreed on the terms (well, not only these terms, but many others. However, these seem rather problematic). It seems also that people in general have this problem and treat absolute and objective, as well as relative and subjective, each pair as synonyms. Absolute means that it holds all by itself, relative means that it depends on something else. Objective and subjective are different. Objective means that it is something individuals can check and might be beyond individuals control, subjective means left to the individual.
"Thus, for example, if our most basic instincts towards moral behaviour are the result of our evolutionary history as a social species, then our inclinations would have an objective reality as a basis. Would the basis be also absolute? Well, no. The evolution of such basal instincts would be relative to us having evolved as social animals. Thus, things can be both objective and relative."