i know truth itself is not relative, so what is moral truth? to me it sounds like saying that following X persons subjective view of morality we can objectively say that Y is bad. this just then makes objectively proving a persons subjective morality a relative truth though, and not an objective truth, because we could express any side of morality, good or bad, objectively, and as you said, truth is not relative and only one truth must exist.

if you’re talking about things like Sam Harris’ definition of morality being a sort of “majority wellbeing”, i’m sure that while we can theoretically allow for the redefinition of morality and make some objective truths regaridng that subjecte moral viewpoint, but as it is not being absolute in the universe and moreso being related to subjective wellbeing of the most amount of living things, i feel that this is still just fulfilling the subjective definitions.

interestingly though, Sam Harris will go on all day about how we can’t redefine free will as being the ability to make choices which all life evidently has in common. just because these choices aren’t ultimately free, he rejects the “compatibilist” redefinition of free will.

isn’t moral truth determined by people making moral judgements?

Sam Harris doesn’t like this idea, lol. “morality is wellbeing!”, well then what is wellbeing to a bad person? it’s all relative

i generally like reuters so i submitted feedback (bottom of reuters website) regarding that article in the hopes that something will come of it. i agree that it does seem very weird to do

i do chaotic neutral cause it’s essentially neutral evil but with at least the illusion of a more secure seal

lawful neutral, then chaotic neutral when i lose the thingy