Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I would aim even lower.  There's no need for a best decision on anything.  Just avoid harming people, and try to help them.  

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.

LOL, yeah...soft cover.  

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.

I think best decision scenarios have more to do with degrees of morality than anything else.  Many moral theorists do define their secular objective moralities.  It's not hard for them to get it right, in principal.  

Another example would be supporting starving people in Africa.  Is it moral to do so?  Immoral?  Amoral?  It's impossible to say.  

Wait...whaaa?  I think that one's cut and dry.  Moral.   

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.

I don't think that the benefit of the species is a moral standard to begin with, so, to me, no amount of knowledge as to what benefits the species would be sufficient as a moral fact.  If I possessed full knowledge of the benefit of our species...I may still know nothing with regards to morality.