Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[bennyboy]

That's right.  I've discussed that already, I think.

It's important to know which were using so that we can see whether or not the statements made about objective morality follow from them, or only apply to an objective morality if it is determined to be judged by the metrics of selective advantage, is all.  Is there a problem with objective morality, in that regard, or is it a problem with moral opportunism -called- objective morality?  

I wouldn't call moral opportunism objective morality, nor call it that methinks. Selective advantage fails to possible cross effects over time. For example, we can maximize the growth of the species, end up with 30 billion people, and then explode in WWIV. So as I said, there still needs to be a kind of "god" idea, but not one of Sky Daddy-- one in which different outcomes may affect something universal, like the ability of the cosmos to sustain life rather than not to.

I'll readily concede it's not a very useful system of thought. More pragmatic would be an intent to look for the best overall decision in all cases, rather than the most emotionally appealing one. So we can hope to approximate the moral fact though we can't really know how close we are/aren't.

It's utility is without question.  It's downright definitional.  Moral opportunism by selective advantage can't help be anything -but- useful, I'm just not sure it's moral.  We can see enough of the future to keep our heads above water.  

Getting the bad guys and bombing a wedding to get the bad guys aren't the same thing.  One might be good, the other bad.  

Yeah, probably. It's pretty hard to get legit bad guys without ending up with a dead kid or something, though, at least in today's world.

If you accept moral facts (even with the priviso that we can;t know for sure..because honestly, what can we know for sure, eh?) then you don't have -too- much of a problem with objectivity in morality.  Maybe the issues you have with it don't stem from it's objectivity.....but from the metrics by which you determined it?

It may be a social instinct, but does it correlate to a moral fact, and what moral facts are those, if any?

It's very hard to say, though I'd still say that whatever morality IS, there may be said to be a hypothetical best action for every agent at every moment. That we can't define it, or can't cog it's proper definition, doesn't affect that too much. It just means that it's very hard to know whether you're getting it right or not.

Another example would be supporting starving people in Africa. Is it moral to do so? Immoral? Amoral? It's impossible to say. A country filled with healthy, multiplying muslims might very well lead to war like we've never seen. On the other hand-- babies with AIDS or malaria are a sad thing to know about. But if you COULD know whether a stronger African continent would benefit or hurt the species, you'd know the moral fact, and could act accordingly.