Atheism and Ethics

[Lucian]

IDK if that's specific to moral objectivity.  The two parties may be subjectivist or relativist and still in conflict, both believing they are right in-fact when neither of them are...or.....they may be realists and they may both have a case.  Hell, we don't even need two parties.  A personal may be in internal conflict between what is true and what is in their best interests, between what is true and what society expects, or between two hard and antithetical truths.  The latter in either case is called an exclusively sub-optimal decision field and represents the majority of our tough calls by any moral metrics.

Amusingly enough, the hypothetical abolitionist in this has made an implicit normative claim.  That a thing is "bad" because it doesn;t help or hinders conflict resolution.  Some abolitionist.

The whole question of how to justify the abolitionist concerns is one that came up in a phd thesis I was listening to the other day. The author argued, rightly I think, that the case isn’t made for it and the proposed benefits are too speculative. 

To be an abolitionist is not to jettison all thoughts of what to do and reasons for why to do it. It is to say that there are no objective moral properties against which such actions can be measured and that we ought to stop talking and thinking like that. 
They might be able to adopt the language of bad and good but gut of all moral connotations and simply have as a locution for something more pragmatic, not too sure on that though. Main thing here is that they are no abolishing acting in ways that have been described with moral terms up to now, nor abolishing reasoning about how they want society to be and how to achieve that.