Interesting conclusion, I would argue that the convergence demonstrates the relativism: an increasingly global society reduces cultural differences, moral codes included.

Our morality fits our evolutionary needs, and that is always changing.

On the other hand, most people aren't revolutionary thinkers; they need exposure to other cultures for new ideas to filter through - even if an act is explicitly forbidden in, say, the bible, the custom may continue until it’s compared to other communities.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the subjectivity of moralality is not to determine whether something is right or wrong, but to recognise that, in that time and culture, most of us would have accepted it in the way we accept the things other cultures find barbaric about us. More an act of empathy really.

But in terms of a functioning society, I agree: “sufficiently objective” is key. That’s the point of a liberal democracy, to find that common ground, and work through differences in values and opinions.

Thanks for such an excellent examination of the subject