[Shodan]

That there exists a concept definable as "morality," which The Google defines as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," is most certainly objective. It's just that what "right and wrong" entails is completely subjective, and varies depending on both the person and their culture. As Crysis said, even though I think the idea of owning slaves is wrong, I probably would not think that way if I had been born 200 years ago. I might even have owned them myself.

There is some level of basic understanding of "wrong and right" that's built into people (with a few exceptions, of course), but it can be overridden to some extent by one's surroundings. Even that's subjective, though, because the innate understanding will vary as well. The only thing objective here is the definition, not the terms the definition uses.

[Shodan]

That there exists a concept definable as "morality," which The Google defines as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior," is most certainly objective. It's just that what "right and wrong" entails is completely subjective, and varies depending on both the person and their culture. As Crysis said, even though I think the idea of owning slaves is wrong, I probably would not think that way if I had been born 200 years ago. I might even have owned them myself.

There is some level of basic understanding of "wrong and right" that's built into people (with a few exceptions, of course), but it can be overridden to some extent by one's surroundings. Even that's subjective, though, because the innate understanding will vary as well. The only thing objective here is the definition, not the terms the definition uses.