On the NYT article on moral truths: Aren't all morals subjective though? The values/axioms/principles you choose to underpin your moral framework, are typically all subjective - and enforced upon you by society and laws - but there can easily be a logical consistency with how you use those base principles to construct and apply your moral framework, which can tell you what is 'true' within that moral framework.

Technically, it's still all belief/opinion-based though, right? It is perfectly valid to say there are hard-set moral 'truths' though, because of the expectation that everyone follow the moral framework and principles that society/laws are based around - i.e. it's just assumed (rightly so) that everyone follows and is expected to follow that moral framework, so that is what is used to judge moral 'truths'.

If that expectation of others did not exist though, there would be no moral 'truths', as anyone would be perfectly free to choose their own moral framework - it'd be kind of like moral nihilism, because there'd be no one dominant moral framework to judge what is 'right' or 'truth' (note: I'm not a nihilist in this area at all, I agree with imposing a near-universally-acceptable/fair moral framework on the rest of society).

Was having a discussion with someone on this recently, so it's a topic that's piqued my interest a bit. I'd be very interested in hearing more about the major schools of moral thought, that are dominant today - both the ones that can be judged as most-accurate, and learning about the flaws in those that are inaccurate.