Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

I strongly disagree with normative relativism but meta-ethical relativism is not merely a position, but historical fact. Denying meta-ethical relativism is denial of human history. Without it moral progress is impossible because than the morals of ancient Rome are defined the same as the morals of modern Japan, which is absurd.

That's descriptive relativism, I think (which is obviously true). Meta-ethical relativism would often seem to entail normative relativism:

Moral relativism maintains that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition. Meta-ethical relativists, in general, believe that the descriptive properties of terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions, but only to societal convention and personal preference. Given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms, and one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation. The latter standard will always be societal or personal and not universal, unlike, for example, the scientific standards for assessing temperature or for determining mathematical truths. Some philosophers maintain that moral relativism entails non-cognitivism. Most relativist theories are forms of moral subjectivism, though not all subjectivist theories are relativistic.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, though. (Bit late now, you might think). Basically, we agree. Morality is not just subjective, nor is it the will of God.

My view is that morality is based on pragamtism and self interest. These things do not change. What changes are perceptions of self interest and of the pragmatic.

My view is there is no such thing as 'moral progress' as a principle.

EG: Slavery was accepted for centuries because it was a cheap source of labour. It was effective, but never efficient. It only became immoral when it ceased to be cost effective.

My views is that the rules surounding warefare are also esentailly pragmatic,as are notions of law and justice (rarely the same thing).

Slavery was largely abolished due to abolitionists like Wilberforce in the UK, and the American Civil War saw the end to it in America. Cost effectiveness probably had little to do with it. Similarly, the idea that morality is purely self-interest is flawed. Otherwise, why would people like me want better conditions for farm animals like battery farmed chickens? It doesn't benefit me in any way (except perhaps as an alleviation of my sense of guilt). In warfare, it would almost certainly be beneficial to kill soldiers and civilians indiscriminately, yet most people are opposed to doing so. This again suggests more than mere pragmatism. Pragmatism certainly plays a part, but it isn't the only aspect.