No, Ake, I have not run out of "credible responses." They're all right out in the open here for all to read. It's just that you and GfS don't like them, so you cavalierly blow them off. Which doesn't mean they are not credible or true, it just means that, as I say, you and GfS don't like them.

And by the way, thank you for the compliment:   The idea that I'm such a brilliant and versatile writer that I must be more than one person warmed my heart.

####

And Little Hawk, according to quite a number of philosophers, and some religious figures, there are such things as moral imperatives, derived, not from society or custom or the times in which one lives, but by the necessities of and for human life at all times, among other things, the matter of simple equitable justice. These are things that the human race has been gradually stumbling toward throughout history. The Magna Carta and many of the things the founding fathers endeavored to incorporate in the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights are examples of growing recognition of these moral imperatives.

I have frequently quoted here on Mudcat a statement that I believe describes our condition in a nutshell:

"Science has discovered the missing link between primitive apes and civilized man. It is us."

There are things that are just plain wrong, regardless of the customs of a particular society or the historical period in which that society exists. And there are actions that people are called to perform, indicated by these same moral imperatives, such as responding to examples of inequities and injustices when one encounters them.

Moral imperatives are not merely matters of opinion.

Don Firth

P. S. I've had my conversation with my state legislator friend. Much good information. And the folks in our monthly writers' group are due to arrive soon, so I'll be busy for the rest of the day.

P. P. S. A little food for thought:—

Moral absolutism:
There are moral judgments (claims of good and evil and right and wrong) that are absolutely true, regardless of the moral framework (society, culture, value system) in which they are uttered.

Moral relativism:
There are no moral judgments that are absolutely true. The truth of moral judgments is relative to the moral framework in which they are uttered. The same judgment may be true in one, and false in another, and there is no exterior standard by which to compare them. It does not make sense to try to judge the truth of moral claims without a frame of reference.

[e.g: The public beheading of a woman accused of adultery. Is this right merely because it's the custom of that society?]

Nihilism:
Begins by accepting moral relativism as true. Then claims that, because moral judgements are relative to their frame of reference, and there is no standard by which to determine the true frame of reference, all moral conversation is meaningless. Morality is entirely abandoned.