Yes, in relation to the reactions of others. In a No God world.
After all, in a God world there exists a transcending truth that mere mortals can turn to in Scripture.
On the other hand, suppose [in a No God world] someone was actually able to construct an argument about Graham making videotapes of women talking about sex. An argument such that she could demonstrate that in fact all rational men and women were obligated to share it.
In regard to human sexuality, different individuals may have had many different experiences precipitating many different moral narratives; but now there is an argument that is not just a subjective/subjunctive point of view. Now we can know for sure if what we think about Graham is in sync with what one ought to think if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.
Then what is the purpose in asking the questions?
You know the answers. Right?
I suspect that my answers “here and now” are rooted in dasein confronting conflicting goods out in a particular world such that political power will determine which set of behaviors will actually be enflorced in any given community.
But that answer is no less an existential contraption. I would never argue that it is the answer. Unless of course someone is able to persuade me that in fact their answer is the answer.
But even then we would have to come up with a methodology enabling us to demonstrate that this is so for all others.
And this discussion is important because one way or another any particular community is going to enact laws that prescribe or proscribe particular behaviors here.
And our behaviors will then be judged by others and rewards and punishments will follow.
Then that community will enact laws which are rooted in dasein.
What’s wrong with that? What’s right with that? So what?
So what?! For the life of me I am unable to grasp how on earth you [or anyone] can ask that.
Communities will reward or punish particular behaviors. And in communities that revolve around one or another objectivist font [religion: Christianity/Islam etc.; ideology: Communism/fascism etc.] the behaviors that you choose carry consequences.
Why one set of behaviors rather than another? And if it is seen as reasonable that morality is largely an existential contraption rooted in dasein then it might seem more reasonable [to some of us] that “moderation, negotiation and compromise” reflects the best of all posible governing agendas.
Now, we obviously react to the interaction of these variables in different ways. My “I” here is more fractured and fragmented than yours. “I” am less able to ground myself in a frame of mind that offers at least some measure of comfort and consolation.
Should I be uncomfortable? Why?
My point here [more or less] is this: To the extent to which you are able to tug me in the direction of your frame of mind, I will be more comfortable. And to the extent to which I am able to tug you in the direction of mine, you will feel less comfortable.
Then it’s just a matter of how this all actually plays out “for all practical purposes” into the future.