Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[bennyboy]

I'd define the maximally beneficial behavior as the perfect behavior.

You are free to do so.

This does not make your decision to do so any less of a subjective assignment of value.

This point is readily conceded.  We come into the same problem with the God question: "Do you believe God is real?"  I'm ignostic on this, because the question is not defined well enough-- when it is, I'll always claim gnostic atheism, but when it is left open, I'm really not sure how to answer.  It's quite possible that for some definitions of morality, I'd argue it must be considered subjective.


But if you are arguing something like "There's no objective morality," then I choose to interpret that in the most generous term possible: "There's no sensible definition of morality which can be said to be objective."  In this case, I've already given an example of a definition that I'd call objective: "The capacity or tendency to act based on a sense of social fairness or balance."  In other words, not to look at any of the moral ideas at all, but at the moral mechanism, which to me precedes moral agency.