I didn't miss it. Again, it's just doesn't matter. There is a huge chunk of the world that views things differently. A simple majority doesn't get to make their morals apply to the entire world.
We aren't talking simple majorities. In the ancient world, we were talking nearly every culture & faith on the planet.
And in the modern world, we're talking about the vast majority of all religious and philosophical ethical and moral systems you can point to.
ISIS is in accord with a huge chunk of the world. A majority of the population once you include China, India and Pakistan.
No, they're not.
The Chinese government has enacted many laws that are not in accord with the moral compass of their citizens. If you're talking about "honor killings" in India, that is a view that is 1) against Hinduism, and 2) only practiced by a fraction of their populace.
The main thing Pakistan and ISIS (Sunni) have in common is Islam, and ISIS' version is definitely not what is practiced there.
Prevailing? If a majority of the world's population is not western with morals and is okay with things like killing women for being raped and other things that the western world find morally wrong, then why do you think the western version is the prevailing one?
Just for starters, if you look at the doctrines & practices of modern mainstream Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism, American paganism, etc., you will find some version of The Golden Rule codified into the major tenets of each.
Those sects of the above that do not follow such usually are closely tied to either fascist political movements or are grounded in the pre-faith cultural traditions of their regions.
The dichotomy is NOT false.The False Dichotomy was in you trying to pigeon hole me into those two options as if they were the only two I am allowed. You presented those two options and declared that I had to stick with one. I have a third view.
By definition, an objectivist moral position is absolute: there is a set of unvarying moral standards by which all actions are judged.
Any attempt to "hybridize" it with a subjectivist moral position only creates a different point on the array of all subjectivist positions.