Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Awwww, you replied while I was still editing.  I hope you and/or Jorg will go back a post and read that version instead.  

re: convergence of subjective views on objective truth
I think it's perfectly possible to have cultural or species bias.  In the case of morality, this becomes instantly obvious if you try to see what other animals think about right or wrong in your efforts to remove species bias.  Right away, then, it becomes obvious that all our moral ideas have a hidden context: "X is right in the context of people."  The next question is this: do you brand people whose moral ideas differ from the average person's as animalistic and dysfunctional?

I think that's the Christian approach: they divide human feelings and ideas into two categories: those which we share with animals, and those which are unique only to humans (being the rational soul or ANIMA).  They then characterize a human life as the struggle to transcend the former and purify and magnify the latter.  So the seven deadly sins could be seen as a list of those animal motivations which if allowed to run loose, will serve as an impediment to the full expression of those qualities which are uniquely human.

In short, you can coin morality in objective terms, but this requires a context-- and the choice of context is arbitrary and highly subjective.  So there really can't be a big-M "Morality" out there somewhere for us to discover as we might discover say a black hole.

Very nice Benny!!

Plato and Aristotle divide the soul into three aspects. The first is shared by all things, the second by all animate things, and the third specifically humans. They have varying names but may be considered to be existence, subsistence, and coexistence.

You are correct in that Christians endeavor (as the ancient Greeks) to purify and transcend (rather than transcend and purify). Where existence is required to do or be anything, subsistence (driven by our animalistic qualities) is to be done right, properly, or purely, and coexistence shall transcend mere cohabitation with things (mutual existence) to proactive understanding and cooperation with things in accordance with a grand single design (teleological coexistence).

However, I would not state there is no big-M "morality." Just as theory of general relativity needs an absolute maximum which all are relative to if not relative to anything else (the speed of light) so to is there some absolute maximum of morality that all subjective morality is held as being relative to.