Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

To say that morality is not objective is a far cry from saying it is arbitrary.

Indeed. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

I believe the problem is like shaking a gift box and knowing that there is something in the box but only being able to guess what it is (...or how it got there or who it's from, etc.) Morality may ultimately have an objective basis but that in no way necessitates that people can know everything about it. So I am willing to grant assumptions both atheistic and theistic approaches could share such as, the existence of conscience and the cultural contingency of all moral systems, etc. with the understanding that these are ultimately grounded in moral absolutes that transcend any individual or culture.

It is arbitrary. I explained that in the OP. A person's desires are arbitrary.

[brewer]

OP Title: Yes, it is true. That does not mean it is arbitrary. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/arbitrary

What are your trees?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you're only describing how you would feel, if you stopped believing, Steve...not any logical conclusion of atheism.

Perhaps, but there are atheist philosophers who reason the same way Sarte, Camus, Nietzshche, Russel. You might be fine  with no ultimate significance, meaning value, or purpose. Others find that depressing.

Well, if those guys said, it, it's probably true.,  They had stuff to say about gods as well..probably true?  

I am not trying to say that you are not happy with your belief--if you are, great. But it is obvious others struggle.

I don't think that they struggle with their atheism.  Russel, in your quoted portion..for example, appears to be struggling with death, the finality of it, and it's inexorable approach. He has difficulty finding meaning in that. He's not having any struggle regarding belief in gods. Try to understand what atheism is and isn't, yeah?

That breaks down the moment you encounter a culture with different values that you would consider 'deal-breakers'.

Hardly, Neo and I both allow for the caveat that even though an objective morality may exist, that doesn't necessarily entail that anyone knows anything about it. "Deal breakers" would be an example of that, not a refutation.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

OP Title: Yes, it is true. That does not mean it is arbitrary. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/arbitrary

What are your trees?

You people keep saying morality is not arbitrary, but you never give me an alternative view.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps you seem like the kind of person that's firmly made up your mind that it just is and has to be arbitrary and anyone who disagrees is a moron who can't think good and stuff, lol?

Is your own private morality arbitrary? Did you pick it out of thin air? Does it refer to nothing? Are there no standards or consistency? Is there no method by which you can ascertain something to be moral, immoral, or ammoral..in your own private morality?

Because...unless some, most or all of these things are true, your own morality isn't arbitrary regardless of whatever else it may be. It may be subjective, it may be based upon your whims and desires, but neither of those two things make it arbitrary, they're actually a direct refutation of any claim that your morality is arbitrary.

[brewer]

OP Title: Yes, it is true. That does not mean it is arbitrary. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/arbitrary

What are your trees?

You people keep saying morality is not arbitrary, but you never give me an alternative view.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/subjective

[Edwardo Piet]

To say that morality is not objective is a far cry from saying it is arbitrary.

QFT!!!!!

I never understand this stuff about how it's arbitrary, impractical and non-universal therefore it's not objective. It's a total non-sequitur.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it stems from the manner that armchair apologists (and going back before them..."learned" theologians) have used the term objective in reference to moral systems. As such, a good number of objections to "objective morality" amount, more accurately...to objections to some form..strong or weak, of a divine command or divine nature based morality. Or, in a secular context, to the present state of various competing moral systems.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That breaks down the moment you encounter a culture with different values that you would consider 'deal-breakers'.

Exactly right, but also where our culture might be heading. Purely secular moral systems (mostly based on Marxist theories) do not have the most impressive record during the 20th Century. Or earlier for that matter. The French Revolution slogan of Liberty and Equality was quickly put into practice with the guillotine. Today, in the West, "bio-ethicists" like Peter Singer and others have started arguing for post-birth abortions, terminating the mentally disabled, and flirting with eugenics based on 'rational' principles. Personally, I don't see the high rates of abortion and the caviler attitudes about it as a sign of progress. It remains to be seen if these secular values will persist long after becoming disconnected from the Christian cultures in which they arose. The values of Western European and Anglo-American democracies that seem so obvious to humanists could be a historical bubble.

[FatAndFaithless]

Mn, yes, theocratic moralities have such a sterling historical reputation.