Dan Koenig writes:
> It seems to me that objective morality is "What is right", an
> absolute truth if you will, regardless of how we perceive it.
>
> What we perceive to be an objective morality or absolute truth is
> actually quite subjective, of necessity, because it is what we
> perceive to be true rather than necessarily what is true; in other
> words, a relative truth that will vary from person to person and
> even from one time to another for the same person.
>
> If we believe that there is an "objective morality" or what I call
> an absolute truth, then we can spend our lives trying to grasp it
> and be guided by it (an eminently worthwhile endeavour in my view).
> However, we should at the same time recognize that our perception of
> it is a relative truth that will vary from somebody else's best
> perception of absolute truths (or objective morality), which will be
> another relative truth.
>
> We should not attempt to kill others because their best intentioned
> perception differs from our own.

I agree.  However, if you protest the bombing based on this moral, you
are behaving as if this moral is objective.  You are saying it is
wrong for NATO to bomb because this moral is true regardless of their
subjective moral beliefs.  You are saying this moral is true
independent of their concepts.  Otherwise you are not protesting on
moral grounds.  You can be inspired to protest by your subjective
moral beliefs, but you cannot justify your protest with them.

> Regrettably, people have been killing others for millennia because
> the others did not share their relative truths about religion,
> economics, politics, lifestyles, etc.  I think that by their
> behaviours such people indicate that they are a very far way off
> from even approximating an understanding of objective morality
> . . . . . . .but, then, that's only my relative truth.

martin