Hi: In meta-ethics there is an ongoing, heated debate about whether moral propositions are "objective" or "absolute" vs. "subjective" or "relative." This debate appears to be progressing nowhere fast. Could it be that moral propositions are like theorems in geometry, i.e. that they are deduced from and depend for their validity on the truth of the postulates or axioms that underlie them? So, nobody seems too concerned about the "subjectivity" of geometry in spite of the fact that it is impossible to "prove" that parallel lines never intersect--we either accept this axiom or we don't. Is it possible that propositions like "it is wrong to take innocent human life" should be viewed as a postulate from which we can then deduce (in combination with other postulates) moral conclusions? Does this approach offer a way out of the "objective" vs. "subjective" debate? Thanks. Mark