Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[bennyboy]

Is it subjectively or objectively wrong to kill an infant?

If killing the infant will definitely serve a greater good, like saving hundreds of other babies, then it is not wrong at all, though your subjective ideas about that act, without foreknowledge, will be incorrect. In other words, there may be an objective moral fact, and you act wrongly due to a lack of information.

Did you make it wrong to kill an infant? (subjective)
Is it only your opinion that it is wrong to kill an infant? (subjective)
Could it be right, if you decided that it was so? (subjective)
Is it wrong based upon something independent of any given observers perspective?  (objective)

It's wrong because without other knowledge, it is likely to do more harm than good. WITH knowledge, it may or not be wrong to kill the infant.

On different scales, an apple weighs a third of a pound.  Now, does it weigh a third of a pound on different scales because there is such a things as a pound and it possesses a third of one as an attribute.....or for some other reason(or non-reason)...like, say, different scales just so happen to yield "a third of a pound" in the case of an apple due to it's method of manufacture?  The former would be an objective morality analog.  The latter would be an evolutionary or selective advantage analog.  

That's a strangely useless equivocation on "scale." I'm talking about the duration of time in which the moral consequences of an action are considered.

Why?  If our intent was to adhere to an objective morality, but for whatever reason we failed at that, there are likely moral provisions for the resultant scenario.

You can't "adhere" to objective morality except by acting on your instincts and hoping they approximate a maximally good behavior.

Would a moral act become immoral if it yielded, through some strange and unforseeable future gyrations, a terrible unintended outcome?  I don't see why.

If there were such a thing as objective morality, and if objective facts represented the maximally beneficial act at a given time, then yes, your mind and actions would be out of tune with that moral fact, and would be immoral.

 
Well, the problem with your theory is probably more to do with it not being a moral theory, but a biological persistence theory.

It's a persistence theory based on social instincts, and the behaviors that maximally serve the goals of those instincts.

 
You're misusing subjectivity again.  Goal x may -be- morality.  That a person views goal x through their subjective agency would not and does not make the goal, itself..subjective..it merely restates that we view it through subjective filters.  That we possess moral opinions.

And where those opinions are not in accord with the the moral facts of the moment (i.e. the most perfect possible behavior), then the person's opinions, or at least their actions, are incorrect.

This doesn't even require objective goals. Let's say a well-meaning samaritan attempts to save a suicide victim, but knows nothing about how to do so. They start babbling about how everyone has access to love, but the potential suicide is only reminded about how everyone they loved abused and abandoned them. They start talking about God, but the potential suicide is only reminded how many times they tried to hold on to their faith, only to be sorely disappointed. "Fuck this," and exeunt.

Is the do-gooder's action moral or immoral? I'd argue it's immoral. Despite good intent and a particular moral idea in mind, the person had insufficient information to take important action, and fucked everything up. The moral fact was that the intended behavior was deleterious, and the intent had very little to do with whether the act was moral or not. In fact, I'd say that VERY MUCH of what Christian fucktards do is immoral in this exact way-- their intent (they think) is often very good, but because they are such deluded fuck-ups, they are unaware of the moral facts of life, and end up doing much harm.