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.
I'm going to have to be fairly technical about this, and that's going to be a turn-off to a lot of people. But... Here I go. Morality is ABSOLUTELY subjective and objective for one simple reason: moral subjectivity and objectivity are the same things.
For many would-be philosophers, the words "objective morality" are oxymoronic, a direct juxtaposition within the implied meaning. This is because, when you say "objective morality," it comes across as if you're trying to imply that the universe has a strict moral code to follow, which it obviously doesn't. However, it does have morality... In the form of human beings.
Think about it: no other thing in the universe (that we know of) has any form of morality. Not the icy debris, not the stars, not the light or the gravity or the time... But there are about 8 billion little organisms on a single rock in the middle of space who each have their own moralities and values. We are the only things that exist that can perceive morality. There is nothing else in the universe like us, and therefore, humans are the objective morality of the universe, because the universe is a part of us, and we are a part of it. We are literally made of stardust. Objective morality and value is our subjective morality and value, and vice versa, and for this reason, we both the deciders and keepers of all morality. Each of us.
This brings me to my next point: which morality is right? Well, that's a complex question (~ 8 billion-fold), but the answer I've worked out is: the most widely-benefiting morality. The morality that keeps the most people content with existence and TRULY happy in the maximum respective definitions of it, barring only the happinesses which result from the devastation, destruction, or corruption of others.
The truth of the matter is that all our view about morality are just that. Views. They were constructed by men, for men, and come from men. Therefore they are subjective constructs, and do not exist separate from out thoughts and feelings about the world. It comes from us. OK
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?)