If morality is subjective then slavery can be considered moral again, because back in the day society thought it was moral. No, Morality has to be objective. It's just sometimes the moral thing to do is to commit a vice. Morality like Strategy is long term. Virtues are tactical in the short term. Survival is Logistics.
Its very simple but some idiots will disagree. If nothing is right or wrong then i would be incorrect in saying its right or wrong. Its would be right to call it neutral. This would be like saying the eight ball is a solid when its neutral. Its freaking retarded. And so many people on this site claim morality is subjective but say they agree with the morals of their country. They are contradicting themselves. Its stupid and it has to be stopped.
You need an Objective Moral Standard or else all morality is subjective and according to the preference of the individual. Since Atheist's don't believe in an objective moral standard all of their views are subjective. Some will undoubtedly say that Morality is all about the betterment of the masses, yet they still fail to realize is that that is still a personal opinion of theirs and is no way binding to anyone else. Without an objective moral standard there is no right or wrong.
Subjective means that it pertains to feelings, taste, or opinion. Whether or not a person is correct in their beliefs is subjective in itself.
But is all of morality subjective? I think not, because there are things proven to be either harmful or beneficial, and as long as the principles by which you apply your morals are consistent through every situation, then they can be defined as superior to morals with weaker consistency. It's unlikely that anyone would be completely correct in their views, but they can be more correct than others, meaning there may be a definite "right" and "wrong" that we have not fully discovered due to a lack of understanding.
Actually, please do re-post it, so that everyone can keep hammering home how mistaken you are. "Because if something is not right or wrong than to call it right or wrong would be incorrect." Just because something cannot be objectively right or wrong does not mean it cannot be subjectively right or wrong. Saying that something is subjectively right or wrong is in no way a contradiction; we can subjectively agree with something just as we can objectively agree with something. Also, saying that morality has to be objective because it would be unpleasant if it wasn't is in no way an argument.
Once you establish a set of values and goals, you can use logic to try to determine which actions are generally beneficial or detrimental to our goals. The resulting morals, however, are relative to whatever values or goals are established and whatever standard of logic is applied. Because the values within a specific culture are more or less the same and we all share such basic goals as prosperity and safety, people can usually come to some level of consensus, which is how cultural moral systems are established. To purport that these morals are somehow absolute, however, precludes the possibility of revision and improvement as we grow wiser and figure out what works well in relation to our values and goals. Some good examples of such revision include the abolition of slavery and the rejection of racial, gender, and sexual discrimination.
Religions are dangerous precisely because they continue to push and promote outdated moral systems. We have since discovered how to safely prepare foods such as shellfish or pork. We have since decided that no number of shekels is worth the value of a human life. We have since learned that it is not actually necessary to murder every person among us or every other group beyond us that disagrees with us.
The difference between ethics and morality is often confused. Morality is the name we give to the process by which individual people make judgments, it is necessarily subjective. Ethics are external codes of conduct, like the laws of a government, or the rules of a company, and are necessarily objective. End of story.
The phrase "objective morality" is actually a ridiculous oxy-moron spouted by people, mostly religious ones, to make it sound like you are a monster if you do not agree with their ethics, even if you are not a member of their church.
Morals are based on need.
If the need is too high morals will drop to suit the need.
If the need is too low, morals will be high.
Society changes bases on Society needs.
If society doesn't need it, their morals will be high up against it.
If you got conflicting morals or laws, the higher need will win.
Here's an analogy. I can say clothes are fabulous or tacky. There is no objectively fabulous or tacky. But that doesn't mean the statement is incorrect. Right and wrong works the same way. It's supposed to be subjective. "Correct" and "incorrect" don't apply to subjective statements. Correct and incorrect apply only to objective things.