No no, I wasn't accusing you of stating it. But it's a common misconception that because morality seems to change (perhaps we'll describe it in a linear fashion and use the word 'progress'
this is evidence for morality being subjective. But that doesn't follow, at least not in a strong sense.
Epistemic morality is simply what we know of morality or what we believe regarding it. The ontology of morality deals with whether it actually exists or not, whether morality really is objective.
If you believe that an objective morality exists, then the next question is to account for it. Some account for the objective existence of morals through certain types of platonist theories, other anchor their existence in theism.
I certainly think we should all have some engagement with the question of morality. Its and important question which can be framework for how we interact individually and on national scales.
Take the example of whether killing children is wrong. If morality is ultimately objective, it was to be addressed why we should have any problem with people who believe it is right to do so.
Many disagree with the morals of Islam. Disagreement doesn't precede them being false, however. How can I tell a muslim killing apostates is wrong if morality is subjective? As you said, 'to these people it would be right'. Our understanding differs from theirs, and we disagree. But we have not right to say they are wrong.
These are important questions.
Posted from TSR Mobile