This a really good and controversial question. Personally, I think the reason we reject absolute moral facts, is solely because of moral relativism. We as a society base our reasonings on what we believe in and how we were raised and taught. So when people have differences of opinions on the subject of morality, I think its because we were all taught different beliefs, and our own different versions of right and wrong.

I believe that it is very plausible to respond to the rejection of absolute moral facts with a realistic view of morality. For instance, absolute moral facts state that stealing is immoral regardless of the situation or reasoning behind stealing. But, when looking at the realistic view of morality, we know it is wrong to steal, but when other factors come into play such as, stealing to provide food for your family, or stealing to ensure your child has diapers and formula, or when you see a homeless child steal food because they were hungry. It is morally wrong to steal, but it the right thing to do sometimes in certain situations.

I agree with this to an extent. I believe there are right and wrong for the most part, and it does have to do with a "moral code", but what about certain people who dont have the same chemical makeup as others do? We as a society know the difference from right and wrong for the most part, because we have that voice in our head that tells us its wrong, or right, and our conscience eats at us making us feel certain things. But what about other people who dont have that same thing? There is people out there who arent taught right from wrong, so they dont know any better. We see things as, talking down to authority figures, fighting with people for no reason, committing crimes, etc. as wrong decisions because of our moral code we were taught. But to other people, that is just normal things to do, and normal reactions.