[b][i]Morality is objective[/i][/b] is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

***
Let us set the record straight on this idiotc question that keeps coming up
"Is moraltiy sujective or objective", " "what would it take?" etc..
The whole problem seem to be a mischaracterisation of what the subject/object argument is all about.
Things are not objective or subjective in and of themselves.
Subjectiity and objectivity refer to a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN two things. Between the percieved and the perceiver.
SO it may not be asked "is morality objective" anymore than "is morality subjective".
What is morality but a collection of rules "decided" by society, or through normative association rules that it is claimed ought to be followed for society to work to minimises conflict and aportion rights. SOme moral systems claim to do this equally, others to reserve rights to special groups.

For any given "moral rule" it may not be said to be subjective or objective.
The utterance of the rule and its relationship to the person uttering it is where the object/subject argument lies.
It does not have to be absolute, it can be seen as a spectrum where the interests of the speaker amy or not be favoured; may or not favour their group, or favour their own society - all these are subjective showing a tendancy towards the objectness.
One might conclude that only rules that treat with all humans equally without excpetion are objective. But who wants a morality without mitigation?
As the years have passed I have asked these threads to NAME ONE OBJECTIVE RULE, yet never once has a successful attempt been made to achieve that.
Usually they go for the jugular: "It is wrong to kill".
Once they are showered with all the exceptions; Killing Hitler; euthanasia, just war; legal execuations; abortion of non viablee foetuses; killing to eat;use of insecticides; antibiotics....
Where is YOUR limit? And what appears is a subjective opinion about which forms of killing are morally acceptible, with a claim that they are being objective - they are not.
Each of us has a different reaction to these levels of killing - an there is not necessarily agreement about where on the scale each should appear.
Defenders of moral objectivism usuall end with something very extreme as an example; It is wrong to skin-alive human babies. WHilst it is possible to find rational objections to this rule, by then the argument has gone beyond the Hitler realm.
But the only and ultimate answer to why an action is immoral is "it feels bad", "it causes suffering", or "I don't like it" or the banal "life is sacred" - a rule they have already transgressed with their choice of acceptible killing. Whatever justification used, without mitigation no rule ITSELF is useful, or moral.

The objectivity or subjectivity lies between the reality and the perceiver. It is not inherent in the rule. Humans make up these rules, never all humans (that is impossible) but some humans who have taken the "moral highground" to demand that their personal choices are better argued, have better raison detre, serve better purposes.
But usually these do not suit everyone. Whilst other might try to judge the level of subjectivity in any given particular utterance, no one is without some bias. Bias in where we get our opinions.

Morality is objective is not even wrong. It is a statement without any meaning what ever.

I feel your pain. I need to feel objectivists' pain too. A subset of believers' pain. Evolution has left me with that desire, but I'm rapidly turned off by the rabidly fascist swivel eyed loons here.

[popeye1945]

All meanings are the property and the projections of a biological subject as the only source of meaning in the world. Meaning is a biological experience judged or evaluated as a subjective property. Meaning never belongs to the world as object until it is projected, read as attributed to a meaningless world. Experience is the altered biology of a biological subject by the energy forces of the physical world. One does not experience the world as object; one experiences how the world as object alters one's biology, thus one is experiencing an altered biology, not the reality of the object. There is a distinction to be made between apparent reality, our everyday reality, and that of ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is the energy forces and forms of our outer world. There is only one way any organism experiences the world, and that is subjectively. In the absence of biological consciousness, the world is meaningless; indeed, it does not exist on a subjective level, which is the only way it is known. Take away the world as object, and consciousness ceases to exist; subject and object stand or fall together. With all meaning being the property and product of a subjective consciousness and morality being a meaning, it follows that there is no objective morality; it is a subjective projection into our outer world, a biological extension of the nature of the organism.

[Impenitent]

Noah Webster was here...

-Imp

[accelafine]

Yes he's an arsehole, but when he's right he's really right. 'Morality' is a religious concept. You get into trouble as soon as some idiot tries to define it.
''Umm, it means to be 'good', to do what's 'right' '' So what is 'good' then? What is 'right'? Not having sex outside marriage? Not using birth control, so you end up with 15 children? Being vegan? Who gets to decide what is 'moral' behaviour? Plato? I have just listened to a British muslim man at 'Let women speak' saying that parents are responsible if their children get raped because they don't cover up their children around men. In his tiny mind he's preaching 'morality'. We have these things called brains that have come up with laws to control the behaviour of those who want to do harm to others.
I'm pretty sure most people are well aware when they are doing something illegal that is going to cause harm.
So-called 'morality' is generally the exact OPPOSITE of what is decent, enlightened human behaviour.