The creation of a set of principles and guidelines which most of us try to abide by (morality) is constructed out of a collection of subjective experiences within a formal, public setting. The validation is a combination of an individual's subjective analysis and a society's collective interpretation of any particular rule. The application of a particular [moral] principle is objective in that it does not rely on any one individual's validation or interpretation.

Gotta say, this is by far some of my best work. Succinct yet concise, if I do say so ma'self.

Any notion that our sets of rules (morality) is in any way "a priori" or transcends human subjectivity is an illusion caused by its complex and interwoven yatta yatta yatta. Ipso facto, vis a vi, vous le vou cous che avec moi: Ultimately subjective to varying degrees of individual to collective. Bars. The difference between right and wrong is a very "mortal" (because even some animals have sets of principles: bonobos, chimps, wolf packs) thing.

It's the social contract that matters.

Subjective

Objective vs Subjective reminds me of Argument From Morality for the existence of God. To avoid confusing definitions I would think of it more as Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism. I'm not fully convinced in either case but lean moral relativism.

Morality is a big complex subject. Is it objective? Well, that depends because I think it can be after you agree on terms. Is pocking my eyeballs out for the fun of it, objectively immoral? I would say if society decides on the well being of individuals as its goal for a prosperous civilization then plucking my eyeball out for fun would be harmful to my well being and therefore objectively wrong. Is everything therefore objective? No, because very few things are black and white. You could argue that if I ran you down with my car, that's directly impacting your well being and therefore objectively wrong. Well' maybe but what if it was an accident? Or what if I did it because you were threatening my family with harm? Things get a little muddy and it becomes more difficult to draw an objective position. I think intent and situation must be evaluated to determine if the act is objectively or subjectively moral. A far easier and better solution is to discard your concern for whether something is objective or subjective because, in the end, they're useless terms. If something is immoral, does it really matter if it's subjectively wrong or objectively wrong? In each case, the action is either good or bad and the degree to which side it lands on has no impact on the deed being done.

Morality is immoral.... Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche also goes onto say that morality is also bigotry. Boiling that down means any deviation from logic aka a belief is corruption. The only certainty is uncertainty.

Until one reads F. Nietzsche, and changes one's behavior accordingly, one is serving Satan, or parasitic ET's, take your pick. only acting in your own best interests makes you a human that has the capability to be a friend. Otherwise you are pursuing power over happiness, which means you are nobody's friend.

All things are subjective. Rules are established by imperfect humans. Morality is about maximizing pleasure and avoiding as much pain for yourself and others to the best if your ability at all times.

Morals and ethics are, from a philosophical point of view, exactly the same thing; it's just that one word comes from Greek and the other from Latin.

Morals are subjective, they are the attempts to answer the question "how should I act?", and there is no way to say "this is objectively the right way to act in any given situation"; for such a thing to exist, it would require values that are universally shared and, as far as I know, there has never been such a thing.

Based on the fact that no true moral codes within the general 'natural' world, then they are a human construct. That would logically lead to the conclusion that they are therefore subjective.