Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?

[N80]

An individual's belief structure, since it is dependent only on the individual, is whatever it is, logical or not.

Yes. I agree with this every time it is stated. But what have you said really? It is what it is?

IMO history has made it abundantly clear that nothing guarantees moral behavior.

Yes it has.

I'm not fighting but it seems that you are not understanding what I'm trying to convey. I'd rephrase the first part of your sentence above as "You can be a materialist and understand that everything is permitted by someone, or some group". I could agree completely with that and I think history confirms it. Try as I might I do not see any inconsistency there, it is what I have been saying all along, and I truly do not understand why you keep saying it is illogical.

Yes, we seem to be on different wavelengths. But there is a distinct difference between the way we perceive things to be and what is logically consistent. I think a lot of people struggle with this. So maybe a question is better: Do you believe chattel slavery (ownership of another human as property against his will) to be wrong under all conditions and for all times? If so why? And do you believe it correct to force someone else with violence if necessary not to own slaves? As a materialist there are two possible answers for you: 1.) I believe it is wrong because that is the belief that I have made for myself. I think it is correct and will use or advocate violence to enforce it. 2.) Contemporary society has, for the most part, proscribed slavery and prevents with laws under the penalty of violence so I believe it is immoral.

The logical inconsistency is that what you appeal to is 1.) Individual preference. and 2.) Cultural norms. Both of these have permitted slavery as a moral and right institution. Why are the "morals" of an individual or culture that believe slavery to be okay any less valid than your individual or cultural belief that it is not?

The answer is that by the materialist viewpoint there is no difference between the two sets of morals. They both abide by the same standard.

So you may ask me, why then, do we not have slavery? The answer is twofold: 1.) Because of the threat of violence. If you enslave someone the police will physically take your freedom. And 2.) We do have slavery in virtually every place and circumstance in which the threat or application of violence is insufficient to prevent it.

The common denominator is the threat of and application of violence, not a moral absolute.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

And then there is the corollary: How can we have logically consistent moral beliefs? The answer is only this: a higher authority.

You consistently omit the basis for saying "everything is fine" in the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine".

I don't know how to respond to that. It seems patently self evident. If morals are what I make of them then what isn't fine?

I would be in agreement with the sentence "If everything is up to the individual, then everything is fine according to at least one individual". You imply it is fine, period, implying "fine for everyone", which is not true. I think THAT may be the basis of our entire disagreement, but perhaps there is something else.

That must be it. I think you are being a bit too concrete here. My point is not that slavery is fine for you just because it is fine for someone else. My point is that based on the materialist viewpoint that moral authority is determined by the self or the community then you have no logical basis for telling the slave owner he is absolutely wrong under all circumstances. He has formed his moral belief in the same way you have: within himself or ascribing to the norms of a culture.

And interestingly, these two sources of moral belief often cited here are mutually exclusive. The mores of a culture are meaningless when moral authority comes from within each individual. That is the definition of lawlessness.

[N80]

Really?

So you are accusing me of claiming to be more moral than anyone else? Show me where I have done so. Logical consistency and moral behavior are not the same. One can be both a logically inconsistent and upstanding citizen at the same time. I have never claimed otherwise.

Better yet, if I have in some way claimed moral superiority, I apologize. It was never intended. Alan, an atheist, did claim to be a moral person. I did not and do not dispute that. I would even go so far as to say that most days I do things that I believe to be wrong.

[N80]

Perhaps you might want to re-read some German history.  They were not a majority party in the Reichstag but did hold the highest number of seats.  It was President von Hindenberg who appointed Hitler Chancellor at which point he was able to seize full power.  The last "free" election took place in March 1933 and even then NSDAP only won 43% of the popular vote.  I don't think this qualifies as a majority.  Perhaps there were 3-5 million fraudulent votes cast so in Hitler's mind it was a terrific majority.   Them's the facts.

I've actually studied Hitler's rise to and fall from power. Years ago.  But this is not relevant to the point being made.

The point is that some here, maybe you, are suggesting that how a collective shape their mores is a valid basis for morals. I am simply pointing out that a very large number of people within the Nazi regime had their own deeply held moral structure that most of the world held to be abhorrent then and still do now. It was not my intent to lump all Germans as Nazis. The fact that there were exceptions doesn't change that.

Likewise with slavery. There were vocal and passionate abolitionists all along. That does not change the fact that from its beginning until 1863 the nation of the United States advocated, allowed and codified the institution of chattel slavery. So how can you say that morals are what a culture makes of them and then logically assert that slavery is wrong? You would be rejecting your own basis for morality in doing so.

[mecrox]

East? Like Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? Infant girls left to die because they are valueless? Governments that tell you how many children you may have? Not to mention the fact that your statement is pretty racists assuming happy hoards that do not worry about their place in the world or what is right and wrong.

Agreed. And one who could not live with his own convictions to boot.

I never once suggested that Christianity was filling anyone's heads with horror and nor should it.

Agreed. But I'm not a materialist so I do not place any weight on men's expectations at all. Only a materialist would do so. Ironic, no?


Odd advice from a materialist. "Find a better way, you say. What way, yours? Again, the irony.

Found it. Well, it found me.

First advice, now psychoanalysis. Wow. And really bad psychoanalysis too. But that's just the thing. There is no horror in my life.  And there is no logical inconsistency either. And there are definitely no chains. Just the opposite in fact. Complete freedom.

I'm delighted that you are free and happy, though I wonder if like me you have found that people with a curious urge to prove something to others all the time are often on the run from the consequences of proving something to themselves. Still, if someone says they are free and happy, we can only ask them to share their recipe for amazement with us. For example, what are you hoping to achieve with your posts on this thread and do you think you have succeeded? By the way, you seem a tad mistaken about the belief systems of the East which have been developing for several thousand years and which do not, in fact, have anything whatsoever to do with Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or anything else you mention in that line. Mao and Pol Pot's beliefs, insofar as they had any, were cooked up in the West.

[Alan Goldhammer]

So how can you say that morals are what a culture makes of them and then logically assert that slavery is wrong? You would be rejecting your own basis for morality in doing so.

I never said that.  I only said that one can lead a moral life in the absence of God which is one of your early statements said was an important part.  One can look at a variety of writings from various religions and see how moral codes evolved.  One should not lie.  One should be faithful to one's spouse.  One should be fair in business dealings and so on.  It's interesting that in a professed "moral" country (at least this is what we hear from many religious leaders) that we now have a President who fails on many counts.

[Tony Jay]

Perhaps you might want to re-read some German history.  They were not a majority party in the Reichstag but did hold the highest number of seats.  It was President von Hindenberg who appointed Hitler Chancellor at which point he was able to seize full power.  The last "free" election took place in March 1933 and even then NSDAP only won 43% of the popular vote.  I don't think this qualifies as a majority.  Perhaps there were 3-5 million fraudulent votes cast so in Hitler's mind it was a terrific majority.   Them's the facts.

And this changes my point, how?

The point remains that many tens of millions of individuals in Germany supported Hitler and the Nazis,
They provided him with the support, moral support, for his policies.

Just as an aside why do you think Donald Trump is doing what he is doing right now, over and above some pretty vocal protests?
Could it be that he believes he has a mandate, a moral foundation, for his actions?
No-one can accuse him of being underhand about this - he has been volubly, garrulously proclaiming what he would do for more than a year should he be elected.
I do not like at all what he is about but he is doing exactly now what he said he would do before...
In this at least a refreshing change from most politicians.

Also, on what basis are these protesters protesting?
Could it be that they believe that there is a moral imperative here?
If so, on what basis can they claim this?
After all Donald Trump has been legally elected President of the United States.
Executive orders are perfectly legal per se (a mistake in my opinion - but there you go!).
Some believe that some or all the contents of that executive order can be successfully overturned by the courts but that has yet to be determined.

The protesters clearly do not like Trump nor do they like his policies but that is neither here nor there and does not form any kind of foundation for a moral imperative.
Clearly they must believe that there is a transcendent principle that is in danger of being violated - in other words some things are always wrong.
Whether this does in fact turn out to be the case is also still to be determined.
Nonetheless, these protests are meaningless on every level apart from the moral level.
Donald Trump is not breaking the law (or this has not been shown to be the case yet - and I am pretty sure he would not have taken this step if had been advised that this order could and would overturned on constitutional grounds at a flick of some judges pen).

Yet, if morals are just something that someone believes today - even if collectevized (horrible term) - then what about tomorrow should we change our minds?
Morals are then reduced to a matter of opinion.
We all understand that laws come and go, but laws and morals are definitely not the same!
Political parties and political policies come and go in the same way.
But for morals to be morals there has to be a transcendent quality to them otherwise they are just fashion and opinion.

I responded to a post Torbjorn wrote (apologies for not getting the spelling exact) where, he, despite denying the existence of transcendental quality to morality then made a point (which I quoted) where he said that that murder and child abuse are always wrong and he gave the reason why he thought that was the case.
To him, not only was this self-evident, but it was clear that he felt that this should be self-evident to everyone else as well.
My question is why?
Why should a statement like that be self-evident to anyone who reads it?
In my response I clearly showed how the apparently self-evident can be turned on its head - both individually and collectively.
The only way that that statement can be self-evident (under any circumstances) is if it does indeed have a transcendent quality.
Maybe Torbjorn did not realize that he was contradicting himself.

Another response to my post took some of the examples I gave and extended them both back into history as well as forward to the last couple of decades.
It appears, given the examples quoted, that the the thrust of the post was that Christians have been responsible for many of history's tragedies.
This is correct.
However, I also think that the implication was that, as Christians, they should have known better.
I also agree wholeheartedly with this.
However, to then say that because they did, in fact, not do better, that this somehow proves Christian morality and ethics false and also the broader concept of transcendent quality of morality as null and void, does not follow logically.
What it does conclusively prove is that any individual, whatever label is attached to describe him or her, is prone to moral failure and will actually commit evil acts.
This is true whether one's deeds are committed to history or not, or whether one is found guilty of a crime or not, or whether any third-party is aware of those evil acts or not.
It certainly does not disprove the transcendent quality of morality.

Taking this kind of argument to the realm of law:
All (almost all?) legal jurisdictions on earth have laws prohibiting murder - it is against the law to murder.
All (almost all?) societies, as a whole, accept the legal position on murder.
Yet there is not a legal jurisdiction on earth where murder has not been committed (I be you someone will dig up some obscure example to contradict me here!!) and the laws pertaining to murder are on the statute books precisely because it could happen.
Laws against murder do not prevent murder.
Yet does anybody believe those laws are a failure because they fail to prevent murder?

Isn't it rather silly to dismiss the notion that murder (or any other form of evil)  is wrong as a transcendent moral imperative because it can be ignored either individually or collectively yet endorse man-made legislation that is just as powerless to prevent the same thing?
This is not an argument about how many, or how few, murders, crimes, moral failures, or evil acts occur in different places around the world in different jurisdictions merely that they occur.

Tony Jay

[N80]

I'm delighted that you are free and happy,

Thank you. You sound very sincere.

though I wonder if like me you have found that people with a curious urge to prove something to others all the time are often on the run from the consequences of proving something to themselves.

No. I have not thought about it that way. But it seems odd to me that you say this as if it were a personality disorder (and as if you were a psychoanalyst). What seems more peculiar, especially if you do consider it as some sort of flaw or defect, is that those who persistently participate in the same discussion, like you, have the very same pathology. Right?

I wonder if like me you have found that people on both sides of a running discussion are in it for similar reasons?

Still, if someone says they are free and happy, we can only ask them to share their recipe for amazement with us.

Amazement? I don't know what you mean. I also don't think your request for me to share my 'recipe' is genuine. I suspect, at most, you believe it will expose me to ridicule, which would be mean spirited if true. If you are genuinely interested, PM me.

For example, what are you hoping to achieve with your posts on this thread

Why rehash the thread? Its all here. Is it fair to ask you the same question?

and do you think you have succeeded?

I don't know. Have you?

By the way, you seem a tad mistaken about the belief systems of the East which have been developing for several thousand years and which do not, in fact, have anything whatsoever to do with Pol Pot, Chairman Mao or anything else you mention in that line. Mao and Pol Pot's beliefs, insofar as they had any, were cooked up in the West.

So? The statement was made, maybe by you, I don't recall, that the east was full of shiny happy people. Pot and Mao were in the east. Things were not happy regardless of what influenced them. Same with Hirohito. But the whole notion of the west being broken, repressed and unhappy while the east is enlightened and peaceful is a special kind of fantasy and demeans what it means to be a human in the east. They struggle with the same things we do.

[N80]

I never said that.  I only said that one can lead a moral life in the absence of God which is one of your early statements said was an important part.

You misunderstand. Again. I did not say an atheist or a materialist can't lead a moral life.  And that has never been the point. I have said only that without some form of absolute moral authority then it is logically inconsistent to believe that absolute morals exist. If absolute morals don't exist then no morals are absolute. They are all open for interpretation by individuals or groups. Simple.

we now have a President who fails on many counts.

We've never had a president who didn't. But I agree about Trump. I find Trump repulsive and did not vote for him.

[N80]

It appears, given the examples quoted, that the the thrust of the post was that Christians have been responsible for many of history's tragedies.
This is correct.
However, I also think that the implication was that, as Christians, they should have known better.
I also agree wholeheartedly with this.

I would go as far as to say that those who commit immoral acts and claim to be religious, or even worse,  claiming to do them on the authority of a deity, are the very worst of all.

And while across history great moral injustices have been done by the religious and in the name of religion, it would be silly to ignore the fact that during the twentieth century all crimes against humanity by Christians pale in comparison to those perpetrated by secularists. Stalin and Mao alone are enough to prove this point. Hitler can be thrown in although some like to declare he was from a Christian background. But that's silly as none of his doctrines or ideals were even remotely Christian. All the abominations in all of history put together don't compares to the global human carnage caused by Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

The population of the world in the year 1500 was about 500 million. Between Hitler, Stalin and Mao, Hitler killed by far the fewest, Mao by far the most. Combined, they killed between 80-120 million noncombatants (very conservative numbers by the way). None of them in the name of religion.

[Farmer]

There are no absolute morals outside of a religious context, but there are enforceable morals when a society codifies them into laws.  That's how you can obtain an authoritative morality, if not absolute.

[Tony Jay]

There are no absolute morals outside of a religious context, but there are enforceable morals when a society codifies them into laws.  That's how you can obtain an authoritative morality, if not absolute.

Law and morality are exceptionally poor bed-fellows!

Tony Jay

[mecrox]

So? The statement was made, maybe by you, I don't recall, that the east was full of shiny happy people. Pot and Mao were in the east. Things were not happy regardless of what influenced them. Same with Hirohito. But the whole notion of the west being broken, repressed and unhappy while the east is enlightened and peaceful is a special kind of fantasy and demeans what it means to be a human in the east. They struggle with the same things we do.

That's not what I meant, as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Still, if you wish, don't consider the reality that the world is full of different beliefs and philosophies of great antiquity and sophistication which, to repeat, have nothing whatsoever to do with the beliefs espoused by Pol Pot or Chairman Mao, insofar as practising sociopaths can have any. I can see that for some people having to look at the implications of that might spoil the party. Have you read The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan? There are also some videos on YouTube in which he summarizes his argument in lecture form. His book makes the point very well that our bearings are highly contingent and haven't emerged in quite the way we in the West like to think they have, not least because we've grown up forgetting that we know very little about pretty well any of the world east of about Switzerland. But never mind, I guess some folks prefer just to keep on running.

[Alan Goldhammer]

And this changes my point, how?

I was calling out a misstatement of history. 

The point remains that many tens of millions of individuals in Germany supported Hitler and the Nazis,
They provided him with the support, moral support, for his policies.

There is ample historical documentation that many did not believe his politics would lead to the Holocaust.

Just as an aside why do you think Donald Trump is doing what he is doing right now, over and above some pretty vocal protests?
Could it be that he believes he has a mandate, a moral foundation, for his actions?
No-one can accuse him of being underhand about this - he has been volubly, garrulously proclaiming what he would do for more than a year should he be elected.
I do not like at all what he is about but he is doing exactly now what he said he would do before...
In this at least a refreshing change from most politicians.

Yes he believes he has a mandate.  He is also delusional in being preoccupied with lots of unrelated stuff such as the weather on inauguration day, the size of the crowd, the number of fraudulent voters, etc. 

Also, on what basis are these protesters protesting?
Could it be that they believe that there is a moral imperative here?
If so, on what basis can they claim this?
After all Donald Trump has been legally elected President of the United States.
Executive orders are perfectly legal per se (a mistake in my opinion - but there you go!).
Some believe that some or all the contents of that executive order can be successfully overturned by the courts but that has yet to be determined.

Executive orders are only legal if they are founded on law.

The protesters clearly do not like Trump nor do they like his policies but that is neither here nor there and does not form any kind of foundation for a moral imperative.
Clearly they must believe that there is a transcendent principle that is in danger of being violated - in other words some things are always wrong.
Whether this does in fact turn out to be the case is also still to be determined.
Nonetheless, these protests are meaningless on every level apart from the moral level.

This is an absolutely astounding comment.  This nation has a rich history of non-meaningless protests.  You can only evaluate whether they are meaningless by a historical examination of causality.  Some people are protesting that Trump release his tax returns, some are protesting his cabinet appointments which are execrable in some cases, etc.  We don't know the impact of these protests but if one were to adopt a view that protest is meaningless one is no better than a lemming following the rest of them over the cliff.

Donald Trump is not breaking the law (or this has not been shown to be the case yet - and I am pretty sure he would not have taken this step if had been advised that this order could and would overturned on constitutional grounds at a flick of some judges pen).

You might be assuming way too much.

[Farmer]

Law and morality are exceptionally poor bed-fellows!

Not by design, only by lack of design or competing interests.  Laws are, roughly speaking, the codification of a society's morals.  They lag (or sometimes lead) the overall mood of the power base (be that the ruler or the people, or more usually something in between for democracies).

Common law, particularly as it is in Commonwealth countries, provides further moulding of laws to meet the moral attitudes of the time.

[Tony Jay]

I was calling out a misstatement of history. 

That does not change the point!

There is ample historical documentation that many did not believe his politics would lead to the Holocaust.

Who said anything about the Holocaust?
The Holocaust was pure evil, no doubt about it, but on the scale of events of the entire lifespan of Nazi Germany, a minor event co-synchronous with the decimation of whole countries, and a truly horrifying death toll.
The German people knew exactly what Hitler was about. They signed up for creating a state based on extreme racial prejudice, offensive wars of conquest, and the enslavement of any nationality or ethnic group deemed inferior.
The fact that many Germans might have been optimistic and did not want to consider the ultimate consequences of what this meant is neither here nor there.

Yes he believes he has a mandate.  He is also delusional in being preoccupied with lots of unrelated stuff such as the weather on inauguration day, the size of the crowd, the number of fraudulent voters, etc. 

He may or may not be delusional. I think we should both leave it to the psychiatrists to pronounce on his mental health.

Executive orders are only legal if they are founded on law.

See below.

This is an absolutely astounding comment.  This nation has a rich history of non-meaningless protests.  You can only evaluate whether they are meaningless by a historical examination of causality.  Some people are protesting that Trump release his tax returns, some are protesting his cabinet appointments which are execrable in some cases, etc.  We don't know the impact of these protests but if one were to adopt a view that protest is meaningless one is no better than a lemming following the rest of them over the cliff.

Are you assuming that I am stating that those protests are meaningless?
I think  you need to re-read what I actually wrote!
I happen to think that they are far from meaningless - precisely because they are based on a moral imperative.

You might be assuming way too much.

In many legal jurisdictions there is a principle of an assumption of innocence - even if an individual is actually charged with a crime.
Am I to assume that you don't believe in this principle?
Whether the executive order is legal or not, and whether Donald Trump is guilty of a crime is yet to be determined.
I personally do not like what Trump is doing, but whether there is a legal case to be made against that executive order or against the man personally, never mind a reversal of the order or even a pronouncement of guilt for some legal contravention by Trump, is yet to be determined.
Are you willing to state publicly that Trump is actually a criminal?
Do you actually have any proof of wrongdoing?
Or, do you just feel, like me, that his actions are silly, distasteful, and un-constructive?
I was not making any assumptions - there is no current legal proof of wrongdoing.

I have highlighted various events to discuss issues pertaining to morality and its meaning.
I have no doubt that many of the people currently protesting against Trump have professed beliefs that deny the existence of a transcendent morality, yet, their actual actions tend to betray the existence of another reality.

Tony Jay

[Rand47]

Not by design, only by lack of design or competing interests.  Laws are, roughly speaking, the codification of a society's morals.  They lag (or sometimes lead) the overall mood of the power base (be that the ruler or the people, or more usually something in between for democracies).

Common law, particularly as it is in Commonwealth countries, provides further moulding of laws to meet the moral attitudes of the time.

Phil,

Well said.  It might also be said as a generalization, that they reflect the "consensus" among the governed in democracies. As you point out, sometimes the law is ahead of the consensus and sometimes it lags behind.  One of the disturbing aspects of current western philosophy and culture is that the post-modern conception of "all power (i.e. as reflected in law) is the mere exercise of the ruling metanarrative."   This, with the assumption that there is no "transcendent signified" in any law due to the absolute relativism that is embraced in post-modernism (get the operative notion - "absolute relativism?" LOL).  To my way of thinking this is like blowing up the foundation pillars of a bridge while everyone is fussing over whether to put bicycle lanes in the traffic pattern on the bridge deck. 

Rand

[Ray]

You misunderstand. Again. I did not say an atheist or a materialist can't lead a moral life.  And that has never been the point. I have said only that without some form of absolute moral authority then it is logically inconsistent to believe that absolute morals exist. If absolute morals don't exist then no morals are absolute. They are all open for interpretation by individuals or groups. Simple.

George,
I know your above comment is in reply to Alan Goldhammer, but I'm a bit puzzled by your insistence that an absolute moral authority can exist in realty.

Everything that can be apprehended or perceived in any way is an interpretation.

There is not a thought, nor an understanding, nor an awareness, nor a perception through our senses of anything whatsoever which is not an interpretation.
The description or understanding of anything as being an 'absolute', is also an interpretation.

Those of use who use Photoshop might tend to think that a particular shade of color can be mathematically defined in an absolute way, using specific RGB values within a well-defined color space, such as ProPhoto RGB, or sRGB

However, the perception of the color always has to be interpreted through the mind and brain. Even when everything external to us that is associated with good calibration and color accuracy is constant, such as the quality of the monitor and its calibration,  the color space or profile used, and the quality of the external lighting in the environment where we are viewing the color, the perception of a specific shade of color with specific RGB values can vary significantly depending on its position within the image that we are viewing, and its proximity to adjacent shades in the image.

For example, a shade of grey which is definitely grey in accordance with its RGB values, such as 150, 150, 150, might be perceived as being pure white because of its proximity to solid blacks in the image and the lack of any lighter shades of grey in the image.

However, that same shade of grey placed next to much lighter shades of grey, say 240,240,240, will then change its appearance and look as though it really is grey.
There are numerous examples on the internet demonstrating this phenomenon, and those who view such images in Photoshop can verify for themselves, using the info panel and the eyedropper tool, that different areas in the same image which appear to be different shades of color, have exactly the same RGB values.

This photographic analogy is very relevant because it demonstrates the variability in interpretation even when everything is constant; ie. same color space, same RGB values, same monitor, same calibration, same external lighting, and very significantly, the same person or viewer.

Imagine how much more variable the interpretations can become if one includes different viewers with their own individual responses to the perception of color.

[N80]

George,
I know your above comment is in reply to Alan Goldhammer, but I'm a bit puzzled by your insistence that an absolute moral authority can exist in realty.

I haven't been thinking about this thread for the last few days and it is a long thread.......so I might be wrong about this.....but I don't think I have been insisting that there is an absolute moral authority. (I believe there is but I have tried to keep my beliefs out of this). So I think you might be misappropriating what I have been trying to say.....which seems to be a problem here....probably my fault.

I've tried to get my point across is so many ways. It is actually very simple. But maybe this is the opportunity to say it as simply as possible:

If there is no absolute moral authority then there are no absolute morals.

I don't think it can be broken down any further. Does anyone disagree with it? If so, on what grounds? And AGAIN, individual ideas about what is moral or group consensus about what is moral are not absolute. And it has been made clear that the existence of a law is not the same as a moral.

The consequences of there being no moral authority are what seems to get everyone's dander up. The consequence is that if morals are not absolute then they are relative. If they are relative they are open to interpretation. To assert that morals are open to interpretation AND absolute is logically inconsistent. 

[Ray]

I haven't been thinking about this thread for the last few days and it is a long thread.......so I might be wrong about this.....but I don't think I have been insisting that there is an absolute moral authority. (I believe there is but I have tried to keep my beliefs out of this). So I think you might be misappropriating what I have been trying to say.....which seems to be a problem here....probably my fault.

I guess that was purely my interpretation of what you've written, whether right or wrong. Sorry if you think I've misinterpreted. 

I've tried to get my point across is so many ways. It is actually very simple. But maybe this is the opportunity to say it as simply as possible:

If there is no absolute moral authority then there are no absolute morals.

The consequences of there being no moral authority are what seems to get everyone's dander up. The consequence is that if morals are not absolute then they are relative. If they are relative they are open to interpretation. To assert that morals are open to interpretation AND absolute is logically inconsistent.

As I've already mentioned, everything we experience is an interpretation. We can only experience and interpret external reality in accordance with the limits of the human organism, and the designs of our sensory receptors and intellect.

For example, most people would assert that a leaf is green. In doing so they are projecting their own impressions onto the leaf. The reality is, from our scientific understanding of the issue, a leaf has no color. It has the property of reflecting certain wavelengths of light that the human mind interprets as the color green.

The color exists only in the human mind, and that applies to the color of all objects we see. Whatever the color, or shade of grey, it has no external reality. It's no more than an interpretation by the human brain of a reflected wavelength of light.

Likewise, there is a similar situation with the concepts of 'absolute', 'moral' and 'authority'. They are all constructs of the human mind. They all exist only to the extent that they occupy human thoughts.

[N80]

As I've already mentioned, everything we experience is an interpretation. We can only experience and interpret external reality in accordance with the limits of the human organism, and the designs of our sensory receptors and intellect.

Okay. But I'm not sure what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that we cannot ever actually "know" anything as it actually is. Like all ideas and philosophies this too has consequences. This leads to complete relativism. Nothing is knowable. No truth. No morals. Even the hope of any meaningful interaction between humans is dim. Thomas Wolf shared this view:

“. . . a stone, a leaf, an unfound door; a stone, a leaf, a door. And of all the forgotten faces.

Naked and alone we came into exile. In her dark womb we did not know our mother's face; from the prison of her flesh have we come into the unspeakable and incommunicable prison of this earth.

Which of us has known his brother? Which of us has looked into his father's heart? Which of us has not remained forever prison-pent? Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone?

O waste of lost, in the hot mazes, lost, among bright stars on this weary, unbright cinder, lost! Remembering speechlessly we seek the great forgotten language, the lost lane-end into heaven, a stone, a leaf, an unfound door. Where? When?

O lost, and by the wind grieved, ghost, come back again.”
― Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward, Angel

Likewise, there is a similar situation with the concepts of 'absolute', 'moral' and 'authority'. They are all constructs of the human mind. They all exist only to the extent that they occupy human thoughts.

From a materialist world view you are absolutely correct. And any 'thing' that exists only as a human thought is ephemeral and, in the grand scheme of things, whimsical including 'morals'.  And in that regard the thought of any one human is as valid as the thought of any other. One may interpret slavery as moral. Another may not. Neither is wrong. It is just their interpretation of right and wrong. By your definition it is logically inconsistent to say that one of them is absolutely right and one is absolutely wrong. That is the materialist and existentialist dilemma. Which is my point.