Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

OFC, but..again, some would say that killing an infant is never a moral good even if there were a positively valued outcome from it.  People who, for example...wouldn;t kill baby Hitler, or would...but think it was wrong to kill baby Hitler....and they made a morally compromised choice.  

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.

Harm =/= selective advantage.  Is the scale of morality harm or is it selective advantage?  

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.

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

If you're going to use the term, then learn it.  A scale is simply something used to measure a quantity.  There are many types of scales, that measure different types of quantities.  Some different types of scales measure the same types of quantities.  Deciding how much bad or good an act is is, in principal, no different than determining how many "pounds" something weighs.  We use a scale, maybe we use different scales.  They count up the units in question.  It's easy, for pounds..because there's an objective unit of measurement.  A fact of the matter ( ).  The question of objective morality is whether or not there is any objective moral unit of measure, a moral fact of the matter.  If there were, is there a scale?  A way to count the units of question?  If so, do any of our moral opinions correlate to those moral facts as quantified by our scale?  Whether or not we could adhere to it would be an issue separate to it's objectivity - related to our moral competency and actual ability - you provide a great example below.  

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, we're kind of going back and forth between harm and selective advantage, so I'll ask the question.  Does the above follow, in your opinion, from moral opportunism as the objective morality, or from the nature of harm as the objective morality?  

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

All well and good, but is it a moral theory?  A theory on the evolutionary origin of morality is not necessarily informative as to what our moral imperatives are, and where they come from...today.  

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.

* Yeah.   *conditions and terms may vary

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, 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.

I'd call it a moral action with an unfortunate outcome.  

Christards are in moral disagreement with us.  Not, usually, about whether morality is objective...but the contents of their purportedly objective moralities...particularly as compared to others.  However, let's just use an easy one.  We're all pretty sure murder is bad.  We've all got some extenuating circumstance and minutae... but we can draw a line on that one with reasonable certainty.  Do christards and ourselves both think that murder is wrong for some reason x...or do we both think that murder is wrong because the moral statement purports to reports facts, does report facts, and is true?  They may be deluded, largely..or we may be, or we both may be to some extant or another...but on this question?

I'd say, for example...that while an objective morality based upon selective advantage -could- report facts...they are not the facts it purports to report.  Whereas an objective morality based upon the nature of harm can also report facts, and they are the facts it purports to report.  A category error.