No society has ever labeled charity, courage, altruism, compassion, self-control, kindness, honesty, justice and respect for human life vices or cowardice, cruelty, greed and selfishness virtues. We can experience a desire for the latter, but we cannot experience a moral obligation to do them as we can for the former. We will never make genocide morally obligatory or altruism a moral evil. Also, if you examine the world's major religions, you'll find they share a common morality: transcending the ego.
If you have a solid definition of morality (perhaps well-being?), then the morals derived from that initial premise are objective. They either support what morality is, or they do not. They either cause harm, or they do not. This leaves things open for situations of moral ambiguity, where morals are in conflict.
All definitions are subjective, but once in place, considerations in that are objective.
Health is a good example. We define health as a word to be the state in which we have the least physical or mental problems that impact us. By that definition, being fat is not healthy, having the flu is not healthy, having cancer is not healthy, being a couch potato is not healthy, not eating a balanced diet is not healthy.
In a certain sense, the fact that we value GOOD health is subjective. All values are. But if we hold that a given value is one we hold, considerations under it are objectively clear.
Is a constant shared by every individual human, and every culture composed of this species. There are certainly different 'weightings' applied to differing values according to a specific individual or societies' place in the world, it's stability and security and it's history, but the simple fact of the matter is that the basic human organism, it's wants, needs, desires and fears, don't change. Everyone wants to feel safe. Everyone wants to be loved. Nobody wants for their opinions and ideas to be quashed and rejected by others. People desire companionship, a sense of belonging, and most people are afraid of rejection on some level. In this manner, basic human nature always stays the same. Given this, how could it be permissible, for example, for a Muslim to murder his daughter in the apparent belief that some aspect of her behavior is shameful and unacceptable, whereas in western society such a man would be tried for murder? The simple answer, and I believe the correct one, is that it isn't. The man has killed an innocent, and no 'moral' code can put a positive spin on that. Genuine morality doesn't allow for victimization or unwarranted harm, not does it allow suppression of individual opinion or removal of basic human rights and decency. If a moral code does, then it isn't simply a different subjective opinion, being as this would only allow 'in-group' ethical behavior, but is in fact objectively wrong.
You don't have to believe in a 'higher power' to believe that morality is objective. You don't have to believe that everyone but your particular 'in-group' is wrong. You just have to believe that basic human decency isn't subject to barriers.
Morals are objective because if they were subjective then I would have no problem killing people, even though it many may consider it ethically wrong. There is some sense of morality in everyone. There is a definite right from wrong and we can see it in our daily lives.
I define that which is right as, something in concordance to the nature or will of God. I define something wrong as, something in opposition to the nature or will of God. In this way I can discover morals through the Bible and have a solid view on good and bad.
First I must say I am a soft atheist, and I know the bible was written by a human, not god. Every culture has it's own ideas of what is right and what is wrong, and the universe does not care what people do. Furthermore, humans are animals, and animals do not follow any specific moral law.
Ultimately the fact that most people believe something to be true or false, good or evil, does not make it universally or absolutely so. What we feel on an individual level to be right or wrong is a personal truth, not a collective truth, although it is influenced by the people and culture (and possibly religion) in which we grow up. This is demonstrable in the fact that different cultures have different (and in each case, somewhat understandable) rules on what is taboo. Arguing for a collective principle is really arguing for our own personal views to be imposed on everyone. To argue that morality is objective is, ultimately, to argue that *our own* sense of morality is applicable to everyone else in the world, which is an untenable position if held by any more than one different person in the world. Truth cannot be authentically passed from one person to another through "preaching", or telling them what is wrong - unless they choose on a personal level to accept that as part of their morality system. We can only arrive freely at our own truth, and you can show others the door to your (right or wrong) perspective, but it is their choice whether to walk through of their own accord. A moral principle can, however, be freely arrived at by two or more people. When we see something happening in real life, such as abuse, we have a feeling that "this is not right", and this is a personal thing. Some phenomena in the world (such as murder) are such that nearly everyone in the world, by virtue of human nature, arrive at the conclusion that they are wrong, yet this is still a personal and not a collective truth. Ultimately morality is not about rationalising or theorising what is right or wrong outside of a real-life situation - it is about how we feel in the moment when we see or are confronted with a situation in real life, and is a personal and not an absolute phenomenon.
Morality is passed from parents to their children, who then test that morality, consciously or not, upon reaching adulthood. Some follow the morals they have been taught, supplementing them with others, while others feel as though these morals are incorrect and choose for themselves new morals to better fit their personal views of the universe. Morality is a social construct, designed by humanity as we have evolved intellectually, to separate us from the rest of the animals on Earth. No one person's version of what is moral is entirely the same as anyone else's, despite similarities, and thus morality in and of itself can not be considered objective. It is personal, and ultimately each of us must create our own to govern our actions.
Morality could only be objective if it was a physical object, everybody had it, and nobody disagreed on it. Different cultures have very different morals, and even different people within said cultures. Objective morals also cannot exist because animals do not have them, and humans are of course animals. This I conclude morals are a social construct, are not objective, and never will be.
What I consider to be wrong, may be right for someone else, the same goes for the other way around. They are some things on which the majority agrees to be wrong, because we have been taught that way by society, or it is a part of human nature. There are many factors that influence one person's sense of morality, such as society at a given time and place, the way of upbringing, etc. In the end, it all comes down to be a personal matter. Every single human being has his own truth that may be different from yours or mine.
Different rules on what is right and wrong can be observed between cultures, religions, time periods, and also between families and individuals. We are influenced in our morality by our culture and the people around us, but ultimately our moral principles have to come from ourselves personally. To argue for a collective principle is, at the bottom line, a front for advocating the imposition of our own personal views on everyone. To say that morality is objective is to say that *your own* morality is applicable to everyone, a position that becomes untenable if held by two or more different people in the world. When we see a phenomenon in the real world that offends us, we have the feeling that it is wrong - but it does not become "collective" even if two or more people individually arrive at the same moral principle. Some things (such as murder or rape) are such that most people have the feeling that they are wrong, but this does not make them wrong according to "objective morality", only according to the personal morality of most people. Ideally, we legally prohibit behaviour that offends the individual personal morality of most people. Morality is a real-world phenomenon, and it stems from our feeling and intuitive response in the moment to real-life situations, and has little to do with rationalisations or preachings outside of these situations. NB: This argument is not stating anything to be objectively "right" or "wrong", simply laying out conclusions about the nature of morality according to the present author.