I don't understand the bolded sentences from this Reddit post by user 'GFYsexyfatman' in 2015.
So as the article suggests, let's think of them as two independent dichotomies: one between absolutism and relativism; the other between objectivism and subjectivism.
Absolutists hold that if act X is morally wrong, it's wrong for everyone in all cultures in all circumstances. So if "lying is wrong", then lying is absolutely wrong, whether you're playing a game or in a culture that makes lying acceptable or whatever else. By contrasts, relativists hold that whether an act X is wrong depends on the person who does X or the culture in which X is done. So relativists can think that lying is right for Jane, but wrong for John - or right in Spain, but wrong in Australia. Absolutists can't think that.
Let's look at objectivism and subjectivism now. Objectivists hold that moral facts are mind-independent: they would be true whatever humans thought of them. If murder is wrong now, then the objectivist thinks that even if aliens changed everyone's minds to love murder with mad science, murder would still be wrong. Subjectivists, on the other hand, think moral facts are mind-dependent. They think that what's right and wrong depends upon what we feel about them. So subjectivists think that aliens could change what's right and wrong by changing the minds of everyone on the planet.
You can be an absolutist subjectivist: [1.] moral facts are mind-dependent, but everyone's mind is the same in the relevant respects, so moral facts apply to everyone in just the same way.
You can be an absolutist objectivist: moral facts are just out there in the world, and they apply to everyone equally.
You can be a relativist objectivist: moral facts are out there in the world, independent of us, but they're highly dependent on individual circumstances or cultural context.
You can be a relativist subjectivist: [2.] moral facts are mind-dependent, and since we all have different minds[,] different things are right and wrong for each of us.
Am I correct that in 1, 'relevant respects' refers to those facets or features relevant to 'moral facts'?
Doesn't 1 imply 2, because 'everyone's mind is the same in the relevant respects' ⇒ *'*everyone's mind differs in the IRrelevant respects**' ⇒ 'we all have different minds'?
If the answer to 4 is yes, then is Absolutist Subjectivism a hyponym of Relativist Subjectivism?