Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

Oh, I can condemn those acts from within my moral view just as you can from your allegedly objective moral framework. The only difference would be that you claim absoluteness, IOW you're right and the others are wrong and that's an absolute.

But if it's just your moral framework, it's meaningless. You can't claim superiority. It's not an absolute, because if people could show me that their way is ultimately more beneficial, then my mind would be changed.

There you are in Afghanistan face to face with the Taliban. Would it help you in any way that you claim the absolute? Like say the crusaders in the middle east? If you condemn those acts you are doing that from within your own moral framework, just like me. That's exactly what's happening in the real world all the time. But you have to realize that condemning as such is not a goal but a means. Condemning is a rather ineffective means to change moral views. It IMO is more effective to not attack values but the rationale behind it based on informed reasoning and to try to achieve sharing of moral goals.

Of course, condemning isn't going to help. Informed reasoning, though, presupposes some objective standard to which we can appeal. If, as you say, morality is just what society agrees upon, then all you can say is, 'That's what your society thinks, this is what mine thinks.'

Non sequitur. It does not follow from an absence of an objective moral standard that moral standards cannot influence each other or cannot be changed. Moral standards change because they influence each other, moral rationale is (re)examined in the process and goals are reformulated as a result of trading and negotiating processes (if you grant me this I'll grant you that). The claim of an absolute standard is what inhibits moral change more than anything. That is the claim of traditional christianity, that is the claim of Judaism, that is the claim of muslim fundamentalism, that is the claim of any totalitarian state. Stating the immutable is what constitutes fundamentalistic dogma and inhibits moral evolution.

Again, you're conflating moral objectivism, or moral realism, with moral absolutism. Moral absolutism would state, 'Stealing is always wrong.' A moral realist, though, could say, 'Stealing is sometimes wrong, depending on the consequences.' You talk of moral rationale, but what is this rationale you're referring to, if morality is just society's view or a personally held view? If, though, we say that what's moral is what benefits most people, and harms fewest people, then we have a rationale from which we can work out how best to run society.