Mo' morality Mo' trouble

So, the relativism/absolutism arguments rages on, chez Majikthise. Mosey on over if you want more punishment.

But I think commenter Daryl might have set off a train of thought that allowed me to articulate my own position much more clearly than I was able to earlier. I stated in this post, using quite absolutist, if not positively chauvinistic language that I think Daniel Gross is wrong, and that the Chantico is a sub-par focus-group engineered flop rather than a sublime treat. Since taste is relative to the individual by definition, how can I justify talking about the Chantico as if it is objectively better? Yet I do, and am not going to stop. Is it a paradox?

Well, not any more of a paradox than the fact that I am sitting still as I type this on the crust of a molten rock that is hurtling through space, spinning, at terrific velocities. We think and act in our everyday life as if the ground underneath us is absolutely stable. We need to in order to build houses, drive cars or even just to walk around. Yet it would be just as foolish to allow this de-facto absolutism to lull us thinking there is something immutable and absolute about the lay o' the land. Again, our ethics and morality are our maps. With out them, we are lost. Yet without the territory, the map has not intrinsic worth. And when the map no longer fits with the territory, you tear up the map, not the territory.

Sigh. I'm thinking that I should take this blog back to the real world rather than spending my time baiting libertarians and arguing about the nature of morality. But what can I possibly say that is meaningful and non-depressing about this?