Can anyone here explain how it may well be the case that two individuals, or two cultures, who make different judgements concerning an action or practice noneless hold to the same applicable moral principles?
Can you give us an example?
Different cultures may well view a given action as acceptable or unacceptable based on the application of a given moral precept due to different interpretations of the moral precept.
One culture applies the moral precept uniformally to all infractions.
The other applies varying conditions of application based on cultureal experience or norms.
These kind of contradictions can happen even “within” a single individual… just ask any pro-lifer who is also pro-death penalty. The “sanctity of life” is simply disregarded for the second case.
Different cultures value things differently… moral principles are just principles… not fixed rules either.
Heck, twins raised in the same house and with the same influences can starkly disagree on an issue.
I’m not sure of the point of the thread. Does disagreement on some issues suggest complete disagreement on all issues? Of course not.
It’s certainly possible for two people who share moral principles to disagree on an issue. For instance, you and I might both believe that democracy is a good thing and should be encouraged worldwide, but at the same time, we might disagree on the Iraq war. (Don’t jump all over me, I’m just using it as an example).
I might see our invasion and overthrow of Sadaam as a good thing because it removes a dictator and lets us help the Iraqis build a democratic society, while you may see it as a bad thing because the instability in overthrowing Sadaam by force would make establishing a democratic government too difficult. We both agree as to the ends, but we would differ as to the best way to achieve those ends.
Awesome debate. Let’s eat.
Didja bring the grapes, Wrath? 
That has got to be the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time!
Cheers!