People reject moral objectivity because they picture absolutism — a fixed, exceptionless rulebook written into the universe. Those are two separate dials, and you can turn them independently. Set them, watch where you land on the map of metaethical positions, and see what your position is forced to say about the reformer, the dilemma and the abolitionist.
Dial 1 · What makes a moral claim correct?
Slide from “correctness just is endorsement by my group” to “correctness is settled by something that does not care what anyone endorses.”
Approval settles itApproval is beside the point
Dial 2 · How exceptionless are the rules?
This is the absolutism dial. Turning it up does not make you more objective; it makes you more rigid.
Everything depends on contextRules never bend
The extra switch
Does moral language even try to describe facts — and if it does, does it succeed?