Either you are a moral absolutist, or a moral relativist. Moralities are things that can be ordered by an independent observer, or they aren’t. I don’t think there’s any middle ground.
There appear to be different flavors of objective and subjective morality.
Moral Realism: There is objective truth, right, wrong; Moral Universalism: There is a morality that can be applied to a general class—for example all humans; Value Pluralism: There may be multiple equally correct and fundamental value systems that conflict with each other; Moral Consequentialism: Right and wrong can be determined from consequences; Moral Relativism: There is no objective truth—we should be equally tolerant of all systems; Moral Perspectivism: There is no objective truth—but some systems are better than others. Moral Nihilism: Morality is an illusion—nothing is moral or immoral.
This list could go on—but if you find it valuable to split belief systems between moral realism and not moral realism, then I don’t see how I could meaningfully object… :)
There appear to be different flavors of objective and subjective morality.
Moral Realism: There is objective truth, right, wrong; Moral Universalism: There is a morality that can be applied to a general class—for example all humans; Value Pluralism: There may be multiple equally correct and fundamental value systems that conflict with each other; Moral Consequentialism: Right and wrong can be determined from consequences; Moral Relativism: There is no objective truth—we should be equally tolerant of all systems; Moral Perspectivism: There is no objective truth—but some systems are better than others. Moral Nihilism: Morality is an illusion—nothing is moral or immoral.
This list could go on—but if you find it valuable to split belief systems between moral realism and not moral realism, then I don’t see how I could meaningfully object… :)