Subjectivism is the only one now that confuses me a bit, as being mind-dependent feels the same as relativism to me. Urk this feels like a hurdle that I have to cross. It seems that:
Mind Dependency -> Case-by-case basis.
Under the assumption that everyone has a different mind at least, wouldn't each mind be dealt with on a case by case basis? Since relativists believe it depends on the context and the context is supposedly different for everyone.
Okay, second topic: [1.] whether mind-dependence and case-by-case-basis go hand in hand. I don't think they do. Everyone has a different mind, but those differences aren't total. There are areas of similarity. Let's say you think moral claims depend upon the human desire to avoid negative stimulus and encounter positive stimulus. In that sense they're mind-dependent: if aliens changed that fundamental fact about human minds, the moral fact would change. But they're also practically absolutist, since all humans avoid negative stimulus - it's biological fact. [2.] So you can think moral facts are mind-dependent and case-by-case, so long as you think they're dependent on something about the mind that's sufficiently universal.
I understand that everything between 1 and 2 is exemplifying Absolutist Subjectivism.
Still, does this answer feel tangled to anyone else? The answer doesn't adequately sunder Mind-Dependence, Case by Case, and Absolutism. Anyway:
Don't clauses 1 and 2 contradict each other?
Clause 2 baffles me. How can moral facts be 'case-by-case', if they depend 'on something about the mind that's sufficiently universal'? Aren't 'Case-by-case' and 'universal' antonyms?