>sci - science ampersand math
>philosophy
Right so first off, fuck you, and go fuck yourself, you fucking fucker. Furthermore, fuck your stupid fucking marxist post-modernist shit, you absolute idiot. Seriously, go fuck yourself, forever, starting now.
Morality being "objective", or universal (applying to everybody, everywhere and at any time) is not that controversial. Hard ethical relativism (subjectivism) is generally accepted as meme-tier by most contemporary ethicists, but you can have degrees of soft relativism where the exact moral output (of an "objective", fixed morality) is more or less sensitive to (cultural) circumstances.
However, the fact that morality is universal doesn't actually tell us what that morality "is", or how it functions. Analytic ethicists have agreed for a century now that morality should be "objective", and yet they have absolutely failed to produce a consensus on what that objective morality is. There are in fact many competing models (utilitarianism, contractarianism, hell even deontology is popular now) which can lay equal claim to rationality. You get a "breakthrough" every 20 years or so in liberal philosophy with the arrival of a new model (Rawls's liberalism, Scalon's contractarianism), but it never sticks. To be fair, academics do not differ so greatly about "which" things are moral, but they disagree greatly as to "why". This failure to produce a genuine moral consensus, in liberal philosophy, is basically the story of the 20th century, and it is in the wake of that failure that you get the beginnings of postmodern thought.
