I didn't say all viewpoints are equally valid, did I? I said it was arrogant to simply assume yours was the correct one. If you can make "concrete" moral claims based on YOUR personal experience then so can everybody else... all of whom happen to have different experiences which may lead to very different conclusions. The world is full of zealots who are absolutely certain they could create heaven on Earth if they just got everybody to follow their One True Path.Gonna stop you right here; post-structuralism is wrong; not all viewpoints are equal or valid. It is entirely reasonable to make concrete moral claims based upon personal and historical experience.
I'm going to save you a lot of embarrassment. Stop arguing with me on an internet forum, start reading. Start with Arelus, move on to Diogenes, study western theology, go to the existentialists from there. Nietzche, of course, but also de Beauvoir, read Lock, read Paine. They're boring, but you are clearly not equipped for a debate on epistemology and viewpoint theory.
You assume that because I disagree with you I haven't read any of the things you've read. My casual mention of the Greek concept of arete should have been enough of a clue to show that I have more than a superficial knowledge of ancient philosophy. I'm also something of a fan of the Stoics. As an anarchist I've read plenty of John Locke's work. Daniel Dennett's modern study of the phenomenon of consciousness is fascinating stuff as well. See, I can name drop too. "Study western theology"? I grew up in the Baptist church before becoming an atheist. What do you think I'll read in a book that a decade of Sunday services didn't teach me? I've read the Bible cover to cover. Don't recall anything in it that in any way refutes what I've posted here.