As I said in my reply to stranger, it is hard to say what exactly the basis for morality is, and it is often difficult to argue for one moral position over the other. The good thing about multiculturalism is that it acknowledges this, and is thus an improvement over the idea it largely replaced. But it should only acknowledge that it is difficult. It is not that neither party can claim to be right, it is that they cannot merely claim to be right, they must try and show that they are right.

I don't think though, that valuation of what is right is subjective. It is not a matter of arbitrary taste. And I think if we look at the differences in rules, we will see that they are not based on differences in taste. It is wrong to not tip your bartender in America, but not wrong in England (as I understand it). But we would not conclude that whether one should tip is subjective. In America the hourly wage for a bartender is very low, and tips are supposed to make up the difference. In England that's not the case. On the surface it looks like a difference but underneath it's the same principle.

My values are things that can be distorted and wrong. This is something that has to be admitted. Someone who is extremely selfish values their own wallet over the person who's car the just hit before driving off. There's no subjectivity there--they are wrong. "Values" is a word that I think confuses. It kind of begs the question. My "values" are not necessarily to be "valued". They are not necessarily worth anything. If I am extremely selfish, they are bad values.

I would extend that to the culture that values having women be servile. If you look at all the things that go into backing up their moral beliefs, I think you would reject many of them. Selfishness on the part of the men, and fear on the part of the women, for example. How is it a matter of taste?

And even when I am earnest and well meaning in my moral beliefs, I can be wrong and would admit it if I could be shown how. I may believe that X results in Y when it does not. I may not have any personal experience with something, and therefore not add enough weigh to it in my evaluation. I may have an underlying bias due to the way the idea was first presented to me--perhaps it is something I was taught while young and never questioned.

I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of variation. I think how much we value security has a window of subjectivity, for example. There are genetic differences that have to do with that. But then I don't think the value of acknowledging and working with such legitimate subjective ranges is itself subjective.

Frankly I think that multiculturalism, in its combat with xenophobia, has taken to leaning on the "values are subjective" type of argument as a crutch. If you are arguing with a xenophobe it's natural to avoid exposing yourself by making difficult arguments about the basis of morality, and trying to figure out and judge what all the causes of disagreement are. It's difficult but it's better to do it, because we will get closer to the truth that way. If someone is arguing against Mexicans bringing their culture here, we should be able to do more than say that it is subjective whether their culture is bad. That grants equal legitimacy to the xenophobe. We should instead be able to argue that it is good.