Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems to me by "moral facts" you mean individual mores-- elemental bits of "rightness" that can be considered universal.  

I mean moral facts, not universal individual mores.  If every moral agent in the universe held to a particular moral proclamation A, that universality would not demonstrate it's truth.  

A moral fact is a moral proclamation which is true. 

In evolutionary terms, I'd look at mores as fitness memes-- and since fitness is determined by the environment, one might say that "moral facts" are those ideas about "right" behavior which would maximally benefit the fitness of our species in the long run.  In other words, there isn't a single set of moral ideas writ in the Universe, but there may be a hypothetical "best path" which could be said to most accurately reflect maximally perfect behavior at all future points in time, regardless of anyone's opinions at each of those points.

That would be moral opportunism.  The moral assessment, in that case, hinges upon the selective utility of a behavior rather than any moral fact of any matter.  

After all, isn't that why atheists are at least as moral as Christians?  Not given an "absolute" list of rules to follow, we must constantly observe our environment and attempt to act as well as we can.  I'd describe that as a search for moral facts, because I think it will get us closer to a maximally perfect behavior than dogma ever will.

It would get us closer to a maximally beneficial behavior.  


Some thoughts:

That statement isn't complete enough to be called "true."  You can't apply subjective terms to an object without an agent making the subjective evaluation-- that context-definer is often only implied, but it can never be absent.  The complete statement is "Chocolate ice cream is the most delicious TO ME."  From the stater's perspective, this can be called a subjective fact, because it is a statement about his experience as a subjective agent.  

This would be the equivalent of a moral opinion.

It can ALSO be demonstrated to be an objective truth: you can hook me up to your Brainometer 3000 and see that when I'm given chocolate ice cream, my brain lights up like the 4th of July.  Anybody can come to a consensus on this who can understand how the equipment works, and it is no longer a matter of anyone's opinion.

No.  You may be able to say that Jims brain is objectively active in region X..you may be able to translate that activity into a verification of Jims firmly held opinion....but you are now talking about a brain..not ice cream, and whether or not chocolate is the best.   The latter remains a matter of opinion, even if the action in Jims brain is not.  The possession of an opinion, even if it is objectively verified as being possessed, as in your example...does not suggest or imply that the opinion itself is objective.

We possess moral opinions. We don't even need a brain decoder ring to know that. The question of objective morality is not whether we possess such opinions, and calling them objective simply because they are possessed misses the subject, not just the question, entirely.