Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[bennyboy]

It's true that humans are moral animals because of our DNA, however our DNA does not constitute a moral system in the same sense that the design of an automobile does not constitute a car.  Thus if DNA is objective or not is irrelevant.  

But I more recently distinguished between two definitions of "morality" that I felt could put this conversation to bed.
1)  A system of ideas about what represents right or wrong, and about behaviors which represent them.
2)  The capacity or tendency to have a sense of right or wrong, and the motivation to act accordingly.

The former, which I think you are talking about when you talk about opinions being variably true or not true, is most usefully described in subjective terms.
The latter, which is ingrained in us at a genetic level, and which has been studied in animals not capable of forming linguistic ideas or holding "opinions," is most usefully described in objective terms.

No.  The brain functions which comprise the thoughts of morality are still subjective, whether they're viewed in terms of blood flow and fMRIs or not because they are the thoughts and opinions of a subject, just viewed in a different form.  You don't get from subjectivity to objectivity simply by changing viewpoint; objectivity means you are completely outside the loop of internal mental events, whether they are viewed as blood flow or as thoughts.  Perhaps you mean the latter is most usefully described third person, but that's not the same as objectively.

Well, let's assume that most people are both intrinsically moral (i.e. they have the capacity to act on a sense of right and wrong) and have moral ideas (they creatively apply concepts of right or wrong to their cultures, their life experiences and so on). I don't think anyone would argue that specific moral ideas and systems are not subjective in the sense that they come from subjective consideration of one's feelings and one's environment, including cultural ideas one is immersed in. But what about morality as a capacity to form and act on ideas about right or wrong? I'd say this is a more essential definition, and that it is very much an objective property of humans and maybe some animals.

Take a sociopath whose condition is based on brain damage. He is still capable of understanding moral ideas in a pedantic sense, but he is much less likely than others to act on them. This demonstrates to me that morality, and I use this in the sense of the capacity and tendency to ACT on moral ideas rather then simply to understand them (or even form them), is a matter of brain function, but not only of cognitive brain function.

All healthy humans will have a moral sense, no matter what culture they are in. Some unhealthy humans will fail to act according to moral ideas, because they lack the mechanism for moral motivation. The capacity to act morally is therefore more physical than it is mental (read: subjective), though in 100% of cases, and very much by definition, those behaviors will always be mediated by the subjective flow of feelings and ideas. The ideas are not the essence of morality, rather they are the subjective expression OF morality.

---

You keep trying to rope "agency" into this when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Stop it. You are only confusing yourself further.

I might have to stop responding to you, only because your condescending tone reduces my enjoyment of the discussion, and enjoyment is why I spend time on these forums. Please stop it, or be ignored.

"Agency" has a lot to do with ideas and with actions, and has plenty to do with the subject at hand. If you don't think that to be the case, then you'll have to define your terms more clearly. What does "subjective" mean to you? By what criteria do you judge something to be subjective? How do you identify that which is subjective in the real world?