I wholly agree with what you've stated in these comments about morality but I'd like to expound on moral relativism and my thoughts a bit. https://en.wikipedia

I wholly agree with what you've stated in these comments about morality but I'd like to expound on moral relativism and my thoughts a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism ("moral anti-realist" == "meta-ethical relativism"?) > This view contrasts with moral universalism, which argues that, even though well-intentioned persons disagree...there is still a meaningful sense in which an action could be more "moral" (morally preferable) than another Absolute moral relativism sounds terrible, but I also don't like the idea of being very constrained in my beliefs and actions. I don't think we can truly consider anything other than mathematical constructs to be objective, but I think that there are a few moral values (violence bad, blah blah) that all societies should follow, and everything else is fair game. In effect, there would be a few core principles that all other enforceable moral principles (which are tantamount to laws) are derived from, and everything else is to be judged in the court of society or not at all. There would also be a provision to allow units of organization (homes, businesses) to set reasonable contracts to uphold additional moral values. I think an escape hatch along those lines is most flexible without possibly violating the core values. I came up with some of that on the spot. Feel free to express (polite!) criticism.