DRFseven

I see a difference, too! I see them as two separate things. People have some lapses in their own moral codes and people also have completely different moral opinions from each other.

1. Someone rationalizes, "I'm probably in a bigger hurry than she is, I'll rush over to the check-out line that just opened up, even though she was ahead of me in this line." This is a lapse. This person still believes we should take turns, be fair, etc., especially when the situation is reversed and someone ELSE is doing the "unfair" thing.

2. Opinions on abortion are moral opinions. One person thinks it is immoral; the other doesn't. This clearly demonstrates two different moral opinions.

I think just the opposite; that it is subjective in the abstract (what is stealing wrong FOR?), but objective in specific context (stealing is wrong for reaching the goal of a flourishing society). How would you judge stealing to be wrong without having an idea of the consequences?

DRFseven

You see? There it is again, that assumption that subjective morality isn't morality at all! Why is basing the appropriateness of an act on human opinion not a good way of establishing morals? What else do we have to base it on? Sure, people's opinions are going to vary, but that's how change and improvement happens. It's like saying that there should be one integritous structure for all architecture, regardless of prevailing conditions; that way, if you built according to specs, you'd KNOW you had it right.