I believe, and will likely write up at some point, a view that morality is actually a result of existential interaction. Of course, how that is calculated out is determined by the type of interactions one has. So in this it is "relative", but still has a foundation. What is morale is the obtainment of X, but that can vary dependent on different situations.

For example, killing a baby is usually wrong. But if a group is hiding out underneath the floorboards of a house where troops, who will kill them all on sight, are marching about, muffling a baby's cries to save everyone is the moral choice if there are no alternatives.

People have an intuition that there is underlying morality between all the relative situations, but the problem is no one has produced anything substantial that withstands logical examination. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of philosophy as of yet, so feel free to propose and think on any possibilities you wish.

The term 'cultural relativism' is bound to get you entangled in arguments that go beyond what you may have intended. As it is usually understood it means that the norms and values of a culture should not be evaluated in terms of the norms and values of another.

A more reasonable form of relativism is opposed to moral absolutes and/or moral objectivism. One problem is that those who posit an objective morality cannot explain how their version of objective moral evaluation can be established and known. Or, in other words, why we should regard their norms and values as transcending time and place.

Some will admit that they too are culturally bound but that they are moving toward an absolute. The same problem arises. While, to their credit, they acknowledge change, the claim that it is toward an absolute is without basis.

My current (perhaps unenlightened) view is that morality is the societal aggregate of subjective values, and hence is societally relative. I think this might also be called cultural relativism by some philosophers. — PhilosophyRunner

My understanding of morality splits the difference between subjective and objective views. As I see it, morality at its most basic is a reflection of human nature. We are social animals. We like each other and like to hang around with each other. We have empathy. Add on top of that the needs of running societies ranging from just a few people to millions and you get a complex mix of biological, psychological, sociological, and cultural.

I've linked to this video several times here on the forum. I think it's fascinating and tells us something profound about human morality. 13 minutes.

On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? — PhilosophyRunner

Don't think of wright and wrong. Think of how harmful it is. If one's moral view creates harm than good, then it is immoral. On a lesser intensity, it is offensive.

People who start a moral argument using "right" or "wrong" set the argument up so that it is intentionally contentious and designed to get a rouse out of you, without meaning to come to an understanding.

Imperfectly analogous, (for an ethical naturalist (à la Foot, Parfit, Nussbaum, Peirce-Dewey, Spinoza, Epicurus, et al) like myself) ethics is like linguistics and thereby moralities are like languages and correspondingly 'moral beliefs' (local customs) are like 'dialects' (idioms, clichés). We are an eusocial and metacognitive natural (ecology-situated) species and ethics, it seems to me, concerns individuals-in-groups flourishing by adaptive (coordinating) conduct and (cooperative) relationships despite our natural constraints (i.e. species defects). So not "absolute" – rules without exceptions, or unconditional norms – but objective, or more-than-intersubjective.

I think there is a dynamic objective morality. Which means that the objective morality is ever-changing in the present (Heraclitus: All is flux).
The main problem in this, is man's impotence to realize ("keep up with") the constant flexibility of objective morality. The reasons for this are so many that would need a whole another topic.
People (most of them) have understood that there is no fixed objective morality and they use this argument to jump to the opposite: moral relativism.
Man realizing the lack of inner power, understanding, self-knowledge in themselves they succumb to their weakness and use relativism to their own convenience.

I have spent some time recently thinking about whether morality can be absolute. On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? — PhilosophyRunner

Generally only theists and idealists believe that morality is absolute - because for them god/s or the Logos are foundational sources of all that is good and true. The problem with this idea is that we have no good evidence that there are god/s or that idealism is true. And even if they are, how do we know which moral beliefs are right? It will always be someone's personal preferences regarding idealism, or what they think a particular god regards as moral.

For most of the rest of us, there is no foundational anchor for morality. Morality is simply the term we use to describe codes of conduct we have created to support cooperation and our preferred social order. Further to this, we have empathy and we are a social species, so it follows that nurturing, collaboration and playing nice are rewarded in a multiplicity of ways and are therefore widespread across cultures.

To address your issue of relativism, it is possible to build an objective moral system subject to a particular standard. Many secular humanists today base moral decisions on using the standard of human flourishing as a starting point. Any behaviours assessed as detrimental to human flourishing are viewed as morally wrong. Why flourishing? Why not? Most humans would agree that happiness is preferable to sadness, health is preferable to sickness, life is preferable to death - it's not hard to see how flourishing might be a good start, but it's not perfect. Nothing is.

So what you really ask, and correct me if I am wrong, is whether we can make Objective moral judgments.....because the title of the thread is a bit vague.

If that is indeed what you ask, the answer is yes. Objective judgments can be achieved if we agree on what morality is and what it servers in human society.

First of all the OP clarifies that refers to objective moral judgments not Absolute morality. (I quote " On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? ")
Absolute morality in a theistic frameworks refers to absolute moral declarations.( killing is bad, stealing is bad etc).
If you refer to that type of morality then we agree that only those who don't have a good understanding of reality believe in absolute moral declarations. As a Methodological Naturalist I believe that any systematic approach that takes in to account the goal of morality in human societies and every situation as a distinctive case is capable to arrive to Objective Moral judgements (Situationalism).

There is no such thing as absolute morality.

Take the Ten Commandments: they seem to demonstrate absolute morality, and some are more absolute than others (in practice). The prohibition of killing people is honored in the breach by the most and least devout together. Or, the Seven Deadly Sins -- Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Gluttony, Avarice And Lust. The 7 deadly sins have 7 heavenly virtues: faith, hope, charity, fortitude, justice, temperance and prudence. These lists are distillations, not de novo rules handed down from Mt. Sinai, the story in Exodus not withstanding.

Absolute rules or lists of sins and virtues are touchstones. We 'touch base with them', we may attempt to observe the 'spirit' if not the 'letter' of The Law.

People living together develop a default morality, based on millions of interactions. When in doubt, we might look to whatever 'touchstone' we like to measure how off-base something was, is, or would be. And we consider the consequences. We might wish that some obstacle to our happiness was dead, but the price of getting rid of them is usually too high--but obviously not always.

We tend to be neither as bad as we could be, nor as good. We tend to seek workable compromises.

Don't think of wright and wrong. Think of how harmful it is. If one's moral view creates harm than good, then it is immoral. On a lesser intensity, it is offensive. — L'éléphant

This doesn't really help. One person's harm is another's good.

Hey, PR. Howze about you respond to some of the responses to your post.

This doesn't really help. One person's harm is another's good. — hypericin

It does because there are fundamental reality for all humans. One, humans would not want their families massacred. That's reality. So, we can all agree that it's immoral to annihilate one's family members. There's self-preservation -- that's built-in in us. That's also true about animals, btw. They do protect their offspring from predators and attacks. I mean, I could go on. We just need to be honest about reality.

Now, killing. Is it always immoral to kill? No. There are cases when killing is justified.

And let's not use religion here since different religions have different views of killing. Some religion requires killing a family member for infidelity or whatnot. So, I want to exclude religion in morality. Just really, what's fundamentals in being human. All too human.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind.

Is this a better place to continue our previous discussion?

Rape is wrong and we agree it is wrong.

Drop the "because".

Now, is rape wrong? Do you agree? If so, we can get on with other things. If not, then... well, there are all sorts of possibilities.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover

Sorry, but this is a blatant disregard for humans' fundamental reality. I just said. There are fundamental things that we hold dear to us. Disgust with rape is not taught. The body knows without being told. So, yes, rape is immoral.

Rape is wrong and we agree it is wrong.

Drop the "because".

Now, is rape wrong? Do you agree? If so, we can get on with other things. If not, then... well, there are all sorts of possibilities. — Banno

If rape is wrong even if we disagree that it's wrong, then you're arguing moral absolutism, in which case we agree. I think we don't though, but you may clarify

Your bold "you" misses the point, unless you suggest I, Hanover, have the godly power of decreeing right from wrong. I'd replace it with "anyone", and the answer is yes. If we let our prisoners vote, assuming voting is how we sort the good from the bad, in the district that encompasses the worst prison, rape is good.

then you're arguing moral absolutism, — Hanover

Really? So, what is moral absolutism? That might be a good place to start.

unless you suggest I, Hanover, have the godly power of decreeing right from wrong — Hanover

Well, who else will you trust? Who better?

Sorry, but this is a blatant disregard for humans' fundamental reality. I just said. There are fundamental things that we hold dear to us. Disgust with rape is not taught. The body knows without being told. So, yes, rape is immoral. — L'éléphant

And so those who aren't disgusted by rape, do we declare them evil? And they declare themselves not evil. So who's right?

Don't miss my point here: I agree the rapist is wrong, but I deny its wrongness is simply social convention or a genetically dominant trait. I suggest it's more than that

Don't miss my point here: I agree the rapist is wrong, but I deny its wrongness is simply social convention or a genetically dominant trait. I suggest it's more than that — Hanover

So we don't disagree. I thought you meant it's just a social convention.

Really? So, what is moral absolutism? That might be a good place to start. — Banno

Wiki knows all:

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Well, who else will you trust? Who better? — Banno

And what am I trusting? If Joe says "Bob stole the money," am I evaluating Joe's character, Joe's motives, Joe's veracity, Joe's ability to have correctly seen the crime, Joe's intellect in assessing the many facts that have led him to that conclusion, or Joe's temperament in being able to rationally decide?

My point being that there are all sorts of things that I rely upon when evaluating other's contributions to my conclusions. If your suggestion is that I will look to my reasons to determine if rape is wrong and compare them to other people's, then you are offering, at least in theory, an objective, universal basis for right and wrong and describing my search for truth. That is, I'm not satisfied with just declaring my ability to self declare right and wrong. How I trust my reasons versus another's will be subject to all sorts of considerations (as in the Joe example), but I don't give myself absolute trust.

Not knowing what is morally demanded of us is something that causes most moral creatures occasional distress, and we do resort to others and our own reflections to try to figure it out, meaning we must be accepting there is some objective standard for what that moral reality is.

One way in which moral statements might be thought of as absolute is if we consider their scope - to whom they apply. This is an old argument, to do with the way that statements including moral statements function.

Moral statements are not preferences. So, for example I prefer a bit of pickle on my cheese sandwich. But I'm not going to insist that you should also prefer a bit of pickle on your cheese sandwich. moral statements are quite different to this. If whether one should have pickle on one's sandwiches was a moral issue, then we would say something like that "you ought to have pickles on your sandwich". So where a preference only applies to me, a moral statement is taken to apply to everybody, or at least those in the pertinent circumstances.

So moral statements are not mere preferences, because of preferences taken only apply only to apply to me, where as a moral statement is taken to apply to everybody.

I suppose one could think of this as meaning they are "absolute".

The WIki definition leaves a lot to be desired... like what "intrinsic" is doing in there...

The Ethics Centre offers this:

Moral absolutism is the position that there are universal ethical standards that apply to actions regardless of context. — 3 APR 2018

It goes on to explain how moral absolutism is a bit silly, and tell the funny story about Kant thinking it wrong to lie to save someone from being murdered.

moral statements are not mere preferences, because of preferences taken only apply only to apply to me, where as a moral statement is taken to apply to everybody. — Banno

In thinking about this, if draw a further distinction. Consider "one ought not steal" versus "one ought eat one's vegetables." The first, I'd submit is not a conditional. You ought not steal period. If you must add a conditional, it would be simply to reassert it's meaning: "You ought not steal if you are to be a moral person." Consider the second though, it's not a moral directive, but an implied conditional. That is: "You ought eat your vegetables if you want to be healthy and strong like your father."

It's the lack of conditional as well that elevates it to the ethical.

goes on to explain how moral absolutism is a bit silly, and tell the funny story about Kant thinking it wrong to lie to save someone from being murdered. — Banno

We can speak of absolutism in the generic or debate the nuances of the categorical imperative. I do think Kant's efforts are more successful than the consequentialist's, but I've posited him as the holder of all answers.

Focusing on the Ethics Center's definition, I don't understand what it means by "regardless of context " Even in a starkly absolutist system like divine command theory, killing is permissible sometimes. That sometimes is contextual

A better interpretation of Kant (and of absolutism generally) would be to say "regardless of consequence." That would mean whether you should lie to the murderer at the door to save a life is possibly answerable in the affirmative if you have a moral absolute that innocent life ought be preserved whenever possible.

The distinction being in prioritizing moral directives versus evaluating for preferential consequences.

Keep in mind here that this turn of the debate from your reference to Kant moved it from a debate of absolutism versus relativism to one of deontology versus consequentialism. How the 2 interplay is something I'd have to think more on.

I'd tend to agree that Utlitarianism is relativistic in terms of it evaluating a population's present pleasure/happiness, but the principle itself dictating such an evaluation must occur appears absolute, suggesting it is not acceptable to reject a properly computed Utilitarian result ever.

How Mill sustains his view that liberty is an absolute good, despite his Utilitarianism is problematic as well, but that's a Mill problem, as above was just a Kant problem.

You ought not steal period. If you must add a conditional, it would be simply to reassert it's meaning: "You ought not steal if you are to be a moral person." — Hanover

There's a lot more to be said here, concerning the social intentionality behind property and theft. There's a reason stealing looks absolute. Theft requires the recognition of property. part and parcel of that recognition is that someone else's property is theirs to dispose of as they see fit, and not for you to do with as you will. Theft breaks that social function. It's more like breaking a promise, or moving the rook diagonally, than not eating your vegetables.

THe salient part for our purposes here is the extraordinary complexity of moral issues.

My current (perhaps @unenlightened) view is that morality is the societal aggregate of subjective values, and hence is societally relative. — PhilosophyRunner

The notion of "subjective values" deserves some attention. The word "subjective" went through an almost complete reversal of meaning over the last century. it now is often taken as a synonym for
"personal" or "private".

To see the issue, consider what values there are that are not subjective.

There's a pretty unanimous opinion that rape is not a good thing; so is the view that rape is bad subjective?

Then consider dropping the word from the sentence: did you mean that "morality is just a social aggregation of personal values"? Or simply "morality is just a social aggregation of values"?

And if it is, then are protesters and other dissenters - those who glue themselves to walls in order to draw attention to climate change, or give comfort to persecuted minorities - acting immorally because they go against the "social aggregation of values"? Doesn't history speak to the aggregated values of some societies bing immoral? But how could that be, if mortality were that aggregation?

SO there semes to be more going on here, don't you think?

morality is actually a result of existential interaction. — Philosophim

Well, morality is certainly concerned with interactions between people. Actions that do not invovle others are neither moral nor immoral.

But why bother to include the word "existential"?

As I see it, morality at its most basic is a reflection of human nature. — T Clark

Hmm. Couldn't human nature be immoral? There's plenty of examples of moral thinking that exhaults one to transcend or go beyond one's human nature.

Isn't this an example of the naturalistic fallacy? We can subject it to the open question: is it good to follow one's nature?

↪Tom Storm First of all the OP clarifies that refers to objective moral judgments not Absolute morality. (I quote " On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? ") — Nickolasgaspar

How is "This moral view is objectively right" different to "this moral view is right"? What does "objectively" add? If it is right, it's right, objectively or subjectively or what you will.