Writers: if you're not Judeo-Christian, chances are you suck.

[Rev. Rye]

I'm surprised that he gave me a particular shoutout!

Since it appears he's reading this discussion, let me give a couple more points:

Moral Absolutism is tethered specifically to a Judeo-Christian worldview.

If I'm reading this correctly, you believe that certain things are always wrong, regardless of who does it. Presumably you think that killing people is one of these things. Since you doubtless consider yourself a Christian, 2 Chronicles 13.20 has God directly killing Jeroboam. So, either you have to assume that either God is justified in killing him and the rule against killing isn't as absolute; or it is absolute and you're worshipping a murderer.

I mean, why is it “better” that she and her child survive? On what grounds?

Because if the author is doing his job right, she has gotten you invested in their characters?

(Note: Readers hated that The Hunger Games trilogy ended on such a bleak note. However, if there is no Hope or Virtue, then why not end it there?)

I refer you to my previous point; Suzanne Collins has managed to get millions of people invested in her characters, and thus, we get pissed off when their ends don't fit with our hopes.

As to Objection #2 – A belief in Good and Evil can exist apart from Judeo-Christianity — I’d ask, in which worldview? Not the relativistic worldview, for Good and Evil are subjectively defined. They are not “real” except to the individual who believes them to be.

Well, Hinduism has the struggle against Good and Evil in the Mahabharata and especially in the Bhagavad Gita.
And if you're looking for something more Western, but still not Judeo-Christian, there's clearly a battle between good and evil to be found in Homer's Odyssey.

Two of the major world religions — Judeo-Christianity and Islam — see morals as rooted in God (even though their conceptions of God differ). In Hinduism, the third great world religion, God is in everything, both good and evil. As a result, there is no absolute morality. Through the law of karma, the soul (Atman) simply migrates back to God (Brahman).

So, basically, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, you say morality comes from God. Since Hinduism doesn't work that way, there can't be moral absolutes. Have you ever considered the possibility that, for some people and ideologies, morality comes from actually doing things that help those around you?

Any belief system that appeals to a Moral Law evokes a Judeo-Christian worldview. How? Because a Moral Law implies a Moral Lawgiver.

And why must the Moral Lawgiver be Jehovah? Is it so impossible that, back in the days when humans were learning the ability to reason and they realised that they needed to keep people in line in order that the societies they had created, laws had to be created and internalised in the populace?

Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards.

And even with God, society tends to do the same thing, and individuals are more or less free to do the same, but if it conflicts with society, they'll punish him.

Either Morals are static or elastic, unchanging or always changing, real or illusory.

So, either morals have to be Platonic Forms or they're just arbitrary? And the possibility that they're just a by-product of people realising that they have to live in groups and lay some ground rules so it works out well is impossible why?

And about moral changes, Just look at history: in the 1800s, slavery was more or less accepted as a fact of life in America. Now, slavery is considered wrong. About a hundred years ago, Tsar Nicholas II decreed anti-semitism "A Good Cause," and now, outside of parts of the Middle East, anti-semitism is frowned upon throughout the world.