So being a women makes you less than what a man is, that's subjective? The path to that is subjective? Right and wrong is written in to the "rules" of Earwa, there is no path to it.
ETA: what I'm saying is being born a woman isn't a choice and yet they are morally inferior to men.
To continue that analogy Women and Men start off with different paths available to them. Women can travel paths that lead to palaces of salvation. Men can travel paths that lead to BIG ASS palaces of salvation. I don't think gender not being a choice has to be a factor at all.
These are not my opinions. Bakker has said that he wanted to create a world were morality is objective. The beliefs of men do not matter. He literally says this in answering my question. Then he gives us a plot device which literally shows the morality of things. And this plot device tells us the women are lesser souls than men. The JE is his vehicle to show us the morality of individual things on Earwa, it's why I believe it. Now, can this change? Sure. I hope it does. Maybe something that Kellhus or Mimara does will change this, I don't know.
This is really why I believe this is all a semantic argument. In our world, morality is defined as an issue of right and wrong. That's by definition also subjective. Bakker defines morality as an objective truth and uses the Judging Eye as a plot device to elaborate with the issue. So since these two definitions of morality conflict we have to use analysis to see what the differences are. As you said, the Judging Eye is the plot device that elaborates Earwa's objective morality. Here are the relevant facts as I know them:
• The Judging Eye sees from the vantage of the gods
• The Judging Eye identifies evil as damned and righteousness as glory
• damnation/salvation can apparently be closed or conditioned otherwise
As a modern person talking to other modern people I'd like to be able to use the modern definition of morality in this discussion. However since Bakker did make an alternate definition, we shouldn't ignore it just make the differentiation. So having said that, in my own analysis, the only objective difference between the two seems to be the objective role of damnation and salvation. I believe that on Earwa that's what morality means and it makes sense. Attaining salvation is moral. Attaining Damnation is immoral. For us modern folk, who stand outside those beliefs, we can still judge those actions based on our own sense of morality. I find it more than moral, righteous even, to be a Mandate Schoolman, and suffer eternal damnation just to save the world.
So it's not that Bakker is wrong or I want to dismiss his definition. I just want to make the distinction because Earwa's definition of the word and ours so use damnation/salvation to refer to the two sides of the coin that is morality in Earwa. This frees up the word itself for its modern definition.