: Between "subjective" and "objective" morality, the "objective" case is the stronger one to make. It has more requirements. It is less simple. So, the case to be made is for "objective morality", failing that, "subjective morality" should be accepted. IMHO the case for "objective morality" is not convincing. That's the essence of my argument.
Subjective morality is the idea that morals arise from negotiation and communication between moral agents (i.e. people) and nothing else.
Objective morality is the idea that there is an external "registry" of morality that our moral system can aspire to, and that this external registry represents the One True Morality. This is an extraordinary claim.
Contrast this with subjective reality
and objective reality.
substitute "morality" with "reality" and have the same pattern of words, but there is one important differences; that being, that your own
existence is not in question. (from my POV of course this would be my
existence). This implies that existence
... well... exists, and further implies that it does so without reference to any other entities that may observe this existence. It's kind of what "existence" means
Now, what "objective reality" means is that an object has certain properties, in an absolute sense. The object is a well-defined part of the universe. Our senses and instruments may not be able to completely describe it to us, but there is
a "one true description" of the thing outside of our minds. The consistency with which we interact with the world bears this out.
So, while my attempt at measuring an electron may alter what it now is, my thoughts about that electron do not - the electron has existence outside my thoughts. This implies that my thoughts about an electron would not affect what somebody else measures, and this seems to be borne out by experiment (so long as I don't touch the electron first!).
There is also a big difference between "correct" or "True" (these apply to existence), and "right" or "Good" (these apply to moral actions). So, just changing the words does not lead to an argument with the same form.