Real morality can only be Objective.
Personal decisions are also objective really. In truth morality has to be objective, seemingly subjective only because you cannot comprehend all of the interactions happening to you all at once that make you think it'd be moral to do something one way or the other. Its only subjective to those who do not have the capacity to know where your morality really derives from.
I believe everything is objective. Even subjectivity is objective
The central tenants of Subjective morality (how most thinkers define subjective morality. For instance, subjective moralist Silverman) is that there is: 1. No absolute morality 2. All Morality is subjective by society and time. (some put it to the individual person) Thus, if asked if the Holocaust was (I apologize for jumping to that much-used extreme, but it is the first thing to my mind.) good or bad, the subjective moralist would say from the German's perspective, the Holocaust was a good thing and from the Allies perspective, it was horribly bad. While this lovely way of looking at morality is extremely defensible (i.e. Well that's just YOUR morality!) subjective morality fails on its own tenants. Subjective morality claims that there is no objective truth, but asking a few questions will reveal that subjective morality itself is based upon a few absolute morals that were chosen somewhat willy-nilly. (for lack of a better word at this moment) I can ask the moral subjectivist if it is morally correct to use one's own society and time period to decide their morals. For example: Is it morally right, for me to justify owning a slave in America, 2017 by pointing to Ancient Rome and claiming their morality? Can I point to a Mexican cult that cuts chicken's heads off to justify doing it in America? Can I be morally correct to kill people in England by pointing to the 7 years war (If I was French or some other country at war with Britain at the time.) and using the morality of killing one's country's enemy in wartime despite actually being in peace? Once again: Can I be morally correct by pointing to another society or time's morals and thus justify actions that would otherwise be considered wrong in my society/time? Naturally, every human being will look at the above and immediately say no! (For good reason!) the subjective moralist might say, "Of course, you can't own a slave in 2017 by pointing to another society! That wouldn't make it right! Because It isn't your society!" Exactly my point. (And if you said yes to the above question, then that means anybody could effectively justify nearly ANY action no matter where they live or when they live via pointing to a different society.) (If you say neither yes nor no, then people are still able to abuse morality like that) I agree wholeheartedly. (to the 'no' crowd of my question) of course, it is ridiculous to try and do that. However, in saying no to the question, the subjective moralist just became an absolutist. If the subjective moralist said no, then subjective moralism suddenly has some absolutes! 1. It is ALWAYS wrong to use another society/time's morals to justify actions one's own society/time would deem wrong. And somewhat by extension . . . 2. It is ALWAYS right to use one's own society and time for moral guidance rather than another. Those are two absolutes (see the word, 'always'?) But moral subjectivism claims there are no absolute truths! Of course, the subjective moralist can effectively defend by amending those two 'ALWAYS' to 'sometimes' However, this only delays the problem. How would you decide when those sometimes are right or wrong? Subjectively? Then that only continues the original problem. Any other method of determining the 'sometimes' will lead to either more problems, moral absolutism, or simply being arbitrary. (Another may argue that they believe subjective morality with the individual and not the society. In this case, my question still applies albeit with small modifications: Is it morally correct/ok to point to another person's morality to justify your own? The answer is still no. And the problems still persist.) Because of what I have shown, Subjective morality fails on its own tenant of no absolute morality. Because it cannot lean on itself and stand tall, it is not a logically sound position to stand on.
Even Sam Harris defines objective morality as "That which improves life on earth". That's subjective and good from a human or intelligent animals perspective is also subjective. For religious people who think they have objective morals. Your interpretation of a text is also subjective.
While some people may be influenced by others, or religion, to form their own morals, it is a complete personal decision.
Human morality is for humans and is subjective therefore. Objective morality would be one that was more inclusive, one would think.
It should be objective, but it isn't yet.
I reason that morality is not one characteristically identifiable subjective perspective or objective reaction of perception. To define morality as only subjective or objective is to give injustice to the beautiful poetic nature that surrounds the true nature of this characteristically insightful conceptualization. Respectfully i can only reason that there are two kinds of morality. "ultimate morality" or what i call Base Line Morality and relative taught morality. Ultimate morality stems directly from understanding. I would reason that there are two kinds of culture that make up our morality. First is survival culture, and second is Insight or Understanding culture. These two kinds of culture are polar opposing dependents of each other. When you have survival culture you will have no base line morality because base line morality is directly associated with understanding a concept i call sentient habitual reaction. When you lose survival culture and gain the common culture you will see a gravitation towards base line morality that stems from understanding that is psychologically associated with the absence of the consistent "survival instinct" you find in survival culture. This is because "survival" by nature is about keeping your own and only your own will being. It is this personal individual ideologically naive idea of well being or "self preservation" that causes us to become conceptually ignorant to the well being of others. Ive been writing long enough... Please question my concept. Scrutinize it. Objectively think. And write. I will answer. Peace to all