My latest discussion at Thinking Christian is about morality. It's a difficult subject to debate because it's initially easy for the objectivists to falsely paint moral relativism as the absence of moral imperative, or as acid against all moral authority. Fortunately, I think that the more deeply one analyzes the subject, the closer our views all appear.
My objectivist colleagues find that emotional and material needs to be good reasons for them to follow their vision of objective morality. However, the case where one's emotional and material needs are in synch with objective morality is the trivial scenario.
In the most recent discussion, I asked whether one ought to follow an objective morality even when one's emotional and material objectives say otherwise. This seems like a straightforward, yes or no question.
Suppose the objectivist answers no. In this case, emotional and material objectives determine the good, and our general moral principle is to maximize emotional and material metrics. I like this advice, but it means that the difference between my morality and that of the objectivist is only in the perceived playing field (the consequences of actions). Specifically, I believe in the natural playing field, and they believe in a playing field that features the coercions and rewards of God. For them, God would define the good, not because he is just plain good, but because he sets the emotional and material penalties and rewards. Moral discussion would be over at this point because we would just move on to questions about the playing field (e.g., does God exist, what does he want, how does he punish, etc.) and about which parts of the field we prefer.
When the objectivist answers my question affirmatively, we have the case where objective morality carries an imperative independent of emotional and material needs. In that case, for example, the objectivists should disobey a god who was objectively evil, even if he's going to smite them for their disobedience. The relevant question is then how one objectively determines what the good actually is, given that it might be different from both what God commands and what you feel it should be.