Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, but what if you knew ahead of time?  What if you could see all those people with the foreknowledge that they'd be gassed or whatever?

Me, personally?  I'd kill the kid and not bullshit anyone about how gloriously moral my actions were because I saved teh joos, if i saved teh joos.  Doing a bad thing for an intended outcome has a long and glorious utilitarian history, and we're not uniformly moral creatures.  We make compromised decisions.  

Morality is still a word, and we still get to define it.  If you called zebras "wiggles," you could then say there are no zebras after all.  But I'm fairly confident asserting that for any definition of morality, so long as it relates to behavior and a sense of right and wrong, there is probably a hypothetical best action for each agent at each moment in time.

Maybe, but does that mean that the hypothetical best action is available to us, or, that even if we knew what it was we would be capable of actualizing it?  I don't think we have to do the best thing we could do to satisfy a moral imperative in any case.   

"Murder" is a loaded word, and normally carries bad connotations-- it's almost like saying "a killing which is bad."

This is hard for me to argue, because it goes back to an earlier kind of objective morality I mentioned, and I don't want to be accused of equivocating on it.  I've already argued that any species-wide social instinct based on a sense of balance among individuals must be called objective, since it must have evolved before the birth of any individual person, and is therefore a product of the environment and not of human agency.

That's not what objective morality means. A species wide social instinct is a shared moral opinion. Broken record, but.... a moral fact is not the possession of an evolved moral opinion.  

I'm not so sure, for example, that it would be morally wrong for members of an oppressed population to come to the conclusion that they must escape their chains by murdering their oppressors; people must have some instinct to do so, as liberty affects their genetic fitness.  Please do note this is an aside to our current discussion.

It's not, at all.  The things you call objective moralities often are...but this actually isn't, even if it might not have anything to do with genetic fitness.  Do we murder our oppressors or do we kill them?  What are the moral facts of the matter, if any, that make one killing, and another murder?  We obviously possess such opinions.  They probably find, to some degree or another, their origin in evolved social instincts.......but do they correlate to any moral facts?