Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

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.

The difference is that in relativity, the terms are defined: gravity is gravity, space is space, etc.  In "morality," the term is not defined, and so while there may be an objective truth for each possible definition, there is no over-arching objective truth that applies to all definitions.

Definitions of "morality" that are good but will lead to a different "objective" truth:
-That is moral which serves the greatest good.
-That is moral which reduces suffering.
-That is moral which tends toward equality among members of a community.
-That is moral which minimizes the negative impact of humanity on the world.

There probably is a behavior, in any context, which would maximally cohere to any one of these definitions.  There is probably not a behavior, in any context, which would maximally cohere to all of them.  Therefore, what is moral is dependent not on an objective truth, but on a choice of semantics.

Benny...NNNNoooooo!!

All of the moral definition provided were simply that of moral/ethical utility. While semantics does indeed change the way in which they are expressed, semantics does not change the meaning of what is being said (a rose by any other name).

However, if I take your intended meaning, which I believe to be that what is moral in one sense may not be moral in another sense we must either state that every act is moral and immoral (which contradicts the principle of the excluded middle), every act shall be moral in a particular sense but immoral generally thus immoral, or that every act is moral in a particular sense but immoral generally and thus moral. In either of those cases we ended up in an untenable position where acts are either undefined or always defined in the negative or affirmative.

Now if the definition of morality is objectively defined (that is to say big-M Morality). Then the determination of morality is not dependent upon the subjectivity or sense and may be complimentary (moral or immoral) without being contradictory (moral and immoral) or bias (all moral or all immoral).