The idea is something I came across recently and I haven't seen it discussed here, at least lately, so I'd like to see what you think. Does an objective morality exist? Is there a definitive right and wrong that can proven by objective means? Culture, religion, etc., define a moral code, so is something like murder, which to my knowledge is seen by a majority as immoral, something that is only subjectively moral? Does the fact that a vast number of people follow similar ethics tell us that morality is at least somewhat objective? Essentially morality is a construct. But does this allow for other views of morality to be tolerated or justifiable, especially views that may be the polar opposite of what we think (to be honest, at the moment I can only think of instances like Hitler)?
When we get to issues like murder, for instance, morality is equivocal. Is abortion fine? (under which circumstances?) Is self-defense fine? (Under which circumstances?) Is capital murder fine? (Under which circumstances) Further, what defines murder? We will all in a general sense say, murder is wrong, but at the same time, be able to condone some form of murder (as I think we definitely should in some instances!)
We get to issues such as, is it right to allow 10,000 people to die or take a 30% chance risk to save them, but have another population of 20,000 people die. Morality and social dilemmas are mired with complexities and overlapping dilemmas.
Beyond this, I would say being objective in sifting through these dilemmas and trying to resolve them the best way possible for a society, is still subjective.
Objective Morality would have to be inherent. The purpose of life is not known. Though, it certainly points to forming coalitions and dissolving coalitions. Atoms are constantly bonding and breaking apart and larger give life and influence over the life they create. Prokaryotes were the first forms of life on Earth composed of atoms. Single cells lacking a distinct nucleus. Over several billions of years these cells were at war, forming coalitions, and eventually eukaryotes developed out of this warfare, by which changed the game completely. With higher organization of DNA, atoms, through, cells were able to perform more complex organization. Thus, multicellular organisms. From there, warfare continued among mulitcellular organisms, forming more and more complex organization. In this, diversity was favored to ensure competitiveness of organisms, in that, fitness is defined by genetics in relation to environment. Now, why??? That is the question. Why do atoms behave the way they do...we might know
how they perform, but that doesn't give us much to work with. Essentially this is where I forge a bridge between science and religion (well I prefer faith). The laws of nature and atomic behavior are responsible for us, who we are, how we act, why we do and feel the way we do. It's a matter of why, who, and/or what is responsible for atomic behavior ( laws of chemistry/physics) and its purpose (if any) can we discover true objective morality.
Excuse some of my simplification of the process of cellular evolution; it's simpler to understand and my field of study doesn't go much into biology/chemistry/physics.
Organized societies try to, by instating moral codes and laws, circumvent certain aspects of natural selection. Humans in societies inherit both genes and nationality/wealth/opportunities/duties among other things. Thus, natural selection, in a sense has been diluted, though I am not stating that is good nor bad. Though, anything that would protect the interests of a society or group of humans isn't exactly objective. conserving human existence on Earth in general isn't objective either. (or at least isn't proven to be.)