Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The term, "absolute morality" is a confusing one.  If you mean, that there is absolutely a moral law, then I'd say yes.  If you mean that it's application is the exact same for everyone in every circumstance, then I'd say no.  For example, whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another person depends entirely on the circumstances or context.

But if you're merely talking about the existence of objective morality, then I'd have to say yes.  To say otherwise, is to reduce morality to mere convention.  And of course, if that's the case, then it would be impossible to genuinely condemn any behavior from the Nazi Holocaust to the torturing of disabled children for fun.  Apart from the fact that not being able to affirm the moral wrongness of those acts in any genuine way is sick, it turns very serious behavior into the equivalent of choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

One only need cope with arbitrary morality if it is indeed arbitrary, and I see virtually no reason to believe that at all.  In fact, I see far more reason to believe that morality is non-arbitrary.

Odoital77

Well, you make it sound like doing things that would normally be deemed good, and things that would normally be deemed bad, isn't just an arbitrary choice like choosing chocolate or vanilla icecream. To be honest, the only reason why people are afraid to make such choices is because of societal constructs, which make people afraid of consequences or judgment. People feel in their "heart of hearts" that something is wrong, but that doesn't mean that it's logical or rational or reasonable. Take away these moral social constructs, and yes it is indeed very arbitrary. For people who break these tenuous social constructs, it's very demonstrably arbitrary. So to say that morality isn't arbitrary, when in fact it's just a tenuous illusion born out of dogma, is very obviously false. You don't seem to see the absurdity and utter pointlessness of life in the scheme of the cosmos.