I see that there are logical reasoning ways to tell what is the right and wrong way of handling something. For example killing in cold blood is illogical, while killing in self defense is logical.
I feel as though saying that all Morality is subjective is a lazy concept of thinking.
Despite majority opinion there are moral truths in the world that are universally absolute. This doesn't have to be a ten commandments religious lecture even though that may have a role in this debate. I would instead though discuss some scientific observations that have been made. Whether human or animal there are certain universal morals that can be observed. Killing of animals own species without reason is universally wrong both in humanity and in the animal kingdom. We do not see bears, lions, or even sharks kill their own kind without reason. Their reasons may vary from asserting dominance to protecting offspring or maintaining their domain. However, it is true that needless killing of one universal moral that is shared throughout the entire animal kingdom. Quickly switching base I would connect universal morals with universal rights. Many of these rights that I am referring to are expressed in the US Constitution. I would argue that these rights are also moral absolutes that cannot be subjected to change. If rights can be remolded to fit whatever the current majority believes then it really means that we have no rights at all, and that is something I simply do not agree with.
How can morality be both objective and subjective. Morality is the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. This distinction is made based on a person. That distinction automatically becomes subjective since its his/her opinions and his/her reasoning for it.
Ex: Killing might seem logical to a murder but illogical to normal people. Killing isn't logical to everyone making that belief subjective not objective. (Make sense?)