Great comment Jake. I can see that it just rolled off of your fingers, even though each sentence is deeply soaked in meaning – like Tolkiens writings. It’s not quick plot twists that you can speed read and skim; you could chew on each sentence for as long as you care.

That comes from a contemplated life.

Jakes said:

The inevitability of moral decisions, for all decisions have a moral component. Perhaps that is what moral relativists are running from?

As an example, my relationship with V.

The eternal connundrum. A pretty young sincere virginal woman who wants nothing else but to marry you, and will use every possible means of seduction to get that aim, including at first forgiving other lovers – or even perhaps allowing them.

But in the end it comes down to a conflict of interest. How can we not be empathological and give in to monogamy? Or are we being psychopathic by refusing?

It’s a conflict of interest; there is no moral solution to a conflict of interest.

It’s naive, and I’d say a naivete born from inexperience, that could posit that free will absolves the moral dimension. “just tell her the truth and let her decide”

Doesn’t work. Try it. She will STILL want monogamous marriage, and STILL feel huge pain that will STILL deeply damage her mind and her future.

Exactly as you say; there is no ultimate frame of reference. That’s the inevitable phiolosopy of science. Science itself is embedded in our biology. Our personal frame of reference is inescapable, and there is no ultimate morality – no amount of empathy gets us to an omnicient point of view that is best for everyone.

There is no best for everyone.

And yet to attract women, we need empathy.

And so to love others, while at the same time being honest to our own true nature, we must cause horrible and possibly life damaging hurt.

Moral relativists might want to run from something, but we’re all dragged eventually into the inevitability of moral relativism. It’s the exact place that humans by our nature can not abide. The very place of uncertainty; agnostacism at it’s easiest and lazy-sloppiest, multi-perspectivism once in sharper big picture focus.. Either way, morals lose a single perspective the longer you look at them. This does nothing to dull the pain of causing suffering, or of compromising to suffer oneself.