If an objective moral standard (OMS) requires belief in absolute truth as defined by Christians and other theists, then, because absolute truth is an irrational concept, so is the concept of an OMS. If absolute truth is not part of the moral equation, then, given that objectivity is consistent subjective agreement (CSA) through the physiologically connected lenses of consciousness and perception, an OMS is possible to formulate as a set of CSAs. Such a possibility does not imply that an OMS is never inconsistent with objective reality, since an OMS is always a collective, simplified abstraction from CSA and it follows that (1) collective abstractions may be inconsistent in one way or another and (2) one's interpretation and application of those abstractions may be likewise inconsistent. However, any OMS will be continually refined by application such that inconsistency becomes increasingly unlikely as it is applied and as the group of moral agents to which it is applied grows in number and need.

An OMS need not be universal to be objective. It simply must be deemed objective by the group of moral agents who apply it. If all moral agents agree with an OMS, then that OMS is universal. Otherwise, it may be called local. There is no less objectivity in a local OMS than in a universal one unless two or more groups of moral agents need to apply the same OMS and two or more conflicting OMSs are found.

If two OMSs contain a belief that some thought or action is wrong, then this belief may be seen as more objective than a belief that is not shared between these OMSs. Objectivity in this respect is "relative" in that a belief gains more or less objectivity depending on how much agreement is found in its application. However, it is also "absolute" in that it always functions via this dependency. It is a perceptual dependency, to be sure, but it is one that is shared by all moral agents involved.

When Christians and other theists who support an absolutist morality argue for the impossibility of an OMS outside their religion, they are arguing for a static OMS in which CSA is confined to those who adhere to that religion. A static OMS never changes to meet the needs of the moral agents who apply it. Rather, those needs must constantly conform to the demands of this type of OMS.

Given that:

  • no OMS is perfect because of reasons (1) and (2) listed above,
  • these reasons do not depend on the perfection or imperfection of the OMS,
  • and an OMS is valuable only insofar as it meets the changing needs of those who apply it,

It follows that a static OMS will become decreasingly objective as it is applied.