My views on objective morality

[God of Mr. Hanky]

::bold mine::  CL, I think you've just demonstrated that your morality is subjective without even realizing it in the paragraph above.  You have interpreted the scripture in a fashion that feels right to you.  Because there is no unchallenged consensus amongst Christians on how to interpret the OT, the individual is left ultimately responsible for drawing their own conclusions (and boy, don't so many things get lost in translation?).  Completely subjective.  

To play devil's advocate here (snerk), CL never said that everyone has the same moral sense.  She believes there are "right" morals out there somewhere which people might, if they try, discover.

This isn't that different than anything else in life.  Your perception of my desk might be subtly (or even quite) different than mine.  However, we might both believe there is probably something unerlying our perceptions which is objectively real.

Even without regard to whether God exists, I can see how this might be the case.  If we see instincts not as possessions of a person, but rather see a person as an expression of genetic material, then those behaviors which best express the tendencies (I avoid saying intent or purpose) of the DNA could be objective.

Your own DNA expresses itself in your own behavior, according to your own DNA-influenced values. My own DNA expresses itself in my own behavior, according to my own DNA-influenced values. This defines the subjective - we don't all share the same DNA, therefore we don't have anything objective between us. It is only because we happen to be of the same species, and one which is by necessity sociable that there are enough values traits which we share in common, upon which we base our legal systems (when they aren't hijacked by some strong-arm sociopath such as Kim Jong Ill), and this still barely begins to express our divergent moral values.