Listen I know this subject has had a fair share of threads started. But I have given this a lot of thought and I have to switch teams. Morality is very subjective. I have come to this position logically. But I did prompted by discussion with various people on this forum.
Before we discuss we must first define terms.
Subjective the way I mean to use it is something based on or influenced by personal feelings tastes or opinion.
Objective meaning something not based on or influenced by personal feelings tastes or opinion.
So, I have come to accept morality as subjective. I won't try and preempt any argument in the op. I am pretty confident in my ability to defend my position. But who knows it could change.
There are honestly two considerations for subjective and objective. The first is definition, and I am not sure I completely agree with how you phrased them but will say it is damn close. The second is what it *means* for something to be subjective or objective. The former is a basis for argument, the latter is an area of philosophical process.
Objective means a claim or judgement that is *assumed* to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, opinions, etc. Assumed is an important qualifier, because it differentiates between things we consider truths vs. things we consider facts. System of beliefs (religion) vs. systems of process (academia.)
Subjective means a claim or judgement that is based on those personal considerations, emotional based perspectives, opinions, beliefs, etc. Assumed is not a qualifier here because there is the base assumption that all subjective claims and judgments have room for interpretation, or context, or time, or place, or condition, etc.
What that *means* to morality though is monumental.
If you were to argue that true objectivity cannot ever be achieved with the exception of perhaps core matters of systems of process (like base mathematics or physics base law) then all systems of belief as a source for what is morality are reduced to some degree of subjectivity. That submarines any effort to suggest human fallibility allows for less than concrete definitions of objectivity because of the inherent unknowns with systems of belief.
Even the earliest forms of systems of belief argue that that their beliefs are a basis for morality. A base qualifier that suggests without a system of belief (presumably theirs,) then you get "subjective morality" where moral code is dependent upon context, or time, or condition, etc. The problem is when you strip away all the foundations for all the systems of belief that humanity has come up with over our entire recorded history (some say as many as 5000 or 6000 different Gods in a host of different systems of belief over the ages) then you end up with "morality" based on a system of belief being reflective of the time. An attribute of subjectivity, not objectivity.
Because of, your thesis is generally confirmed.
Morality is and has to be subjective, all of human history in the design of what is usually considered the basis for morality (systems of belief) has been in a constant state of shift since the inception of the idea of morality. What is moral absolute today, was not quite the same 100 years ago. Let alone 1000 years ago, or even further back into the days of polytheism from the Bronze Age and before into the Neolithic Age and Stone Age. For example, we know law existed as a matter of rational consideration before law as a matter of morality came into the picture. And it is further confirmed by the notion that what was rational consideration for law then seems immoral in today's contexts. Again, shifting Morality based on time. So, subjective.
Just because we can go back and trace that generally speaking murder was considered immoral, that did not stop us all that much from a very violent human history so long as the reason for killing (or murder) was accepted. Or, again... subjective.
