Veganism

[Disagreeable]

You don't have the 'progress' or 'agreement' that your argument requires. Progress and agreement implicitly require the very moral absolutes that you're trying to demonstrate, so congrats on simply defining your position into existence.

The point is either agreement is an indicator of moral progress or it isn't. If you're saying that it isn't then you also, by the same logic, can't say that moral disagreement is a sign of subjectivity. I'm not saying that there is necessarily morally objective progress, that would be circular. I'm saying that agreement either is an indicator of moral objectivity and progress or it isn't. If it isn't then by the same logic disagreement isn't an indicator of moral subjectivity. You can't have it both ways.

What you have is morality 'advancing' to the present level. Every previous culture had that. The Colonial Era powers in Europe used it to justify genocide on a breathtaking scale because they were bringing 'civilization' to the 'backward barbarians'.

Is there or isn't there an independent standard though? I'm leaving both possibilities open but you're just insisting that it's all fashion and all subjective.

Pointing to the fact that people can have all sorts of different moral views isn't an indication of moral subjectivity if you're also going to say that convergence isn't an indicator of moral objectivity. As I've said, you can't have it both ways.

That isn't morality. That's you in the here-and-now deciding that you're the first jumped-up chimpanzee in the history of history to finally get it right when every chimp that came before you made exactly the same mistake.

But why are you assuming that there isn't a fact of the matter? That's exactly what's in question.

The evidence indicates that previous generations lacked what you call 'moral facts', or ignored them if they had them. Given that track record, it's questionable that we have them now.

Not having moral knowledge doesn't mean that there aren't moral facts that it's possible to know.

One might call the assumption hubris.

That's ironic considering that I'm leaving both possibilities open but you're insisting that it's all subjective because it's all subjective.

Given this lack of 'moral fact', how do you even pretend to know that these 'moral facts' exist?

Well the way I see it some moral practices are moral harmful than others.

But I wasn't even claiming to know that moral facts exist. I'm just leaving both the possibility of objective and subjective morality open. But you're insisting that it's all subjective but you haven't actually got an argument besides saying that people disagree about what they think is moral, which, again, can only apply if agreement points to the opposite conclusion.

Saying that we have disagreement but we don't have agreement because agreement is just the latest trend, is silly. It's a double standard and saying that it's all just whatever is morally fashionable just begs the question.