Objective morality has crashed, burned, and then exploded. If you want proof of that; I point you to History.
Americans think that violence is fine to show on T.V, but sex is pretty strictly monitored. In Europe, It's the opposite. That right there is the definition of moral subjectivity.
Once a culture or society defines the principles to which motality is based, morality becomes objective. But that definition, those principles, will always be subject to change, and so morality is ultimately subjective.
Morality came from evolution; so logically it is not objective because it was created through natural selection.
Because Moral Objectivity is Irrational, there is no such thing as Objective Morality, even if a god existed and it created morality, it would be Subjective and thus not Objective and Relativism would still rule the courts.
In contrast to its close synonym, one's 'morals' are one's personal sense of what is right and what is wrong whereas one's 'ethics' are of a communal sense of morality. Objectivity is considered to be the “truth,” or the reality in which all things existent can interface through equal perception. Being so, then, a set of beliefs in what is right and what is wrong is made more objective in becoming communal from being individual. To say as lay, this debate topic ought be reworded to “are ethics subjective?” Objectivity defines itself in that it is reached only when consensus among an arbitrarily large group of communicative, individual observers aligns. Subjectivity is individual, so objectivity is obtained via subjective consensus. Both arguments are thus perfectly equal, and whether ethics are subjective is in itself an ethical standard; ethics are self-containing on the conscious plane of objectivity. Do consider, of course, that my personal opinion hereof is either subjective or objective; I posit that objectivity is merely another extraneous logic, both followed and defined by our perceptions. The underlying issue is of course how one defines objectivity apart from subjectivity; a question so deeply philosophical as to contest the contrast between consciousness and the physical functions of the nervous system. This argument is so, and as said, an utter waste of time so much as all other endeavors in life are mere vanities. One may draw conclusion as one pleases, but I gather that debating this makes people happy. Do not allow my mention thereof to limit your perception, conclusions, nor your morals, as it is merely a statement of what is known. To conclude with an exaggerated paradox, I ask that you more importantly consider, though it be both psychologically unnecessary and consciously moot for you to do so if you are still reading now, that my own opinions are, quite simply, opinions. If you deem these objective, then I hereby prove to you, the reader, by experimentation in which you are the subject to be studied, that objectivity is a culturally grown logic of no more sake that the other countless millions of trains of mind that have existed for far longer.
You'd be a real pedantic idiot if you argued that there is no objective reason that killing people is objectively bad. Unfortunately, you'd be a real pedantic idiot who happened to be right.
Subjective morality has crash, burned, and then exploded. If you want proof of that, I point you to History.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I know that He is the Way
The problem isn't moral relativism its subject relativism, Once you decide what morality is there are by definition things that are or are not Moral, just because you can imbue any meaning to any sounds you want doesn't mean that the meaning you imbue ever changes its composition, If I say "Cup" but describe anger, then I say "Food" and again describe anger the meaning hasn't changed just the word used, If i say "Morality and then describe something that is Not "Morality" i haven't changed the word to now have different properties I'm just talking about another thing and in the context of the discussion I'm wrong. It would be the same if every time someone spoke about anger i was thinking of frustration and so our opinions never matched and i agreed o disagree, Im still dead wrong in my opinion in the context of 'anger'.