Is morality objective or subjective?

[Rev. Rye]

Do you believe ethics is a subjective concept or does it exist objectively?

Well, ethics as a concept does exist objectively.

Then again, whether the underlying concepts are subjective or objective, after a long time of study, I'm convinced the answer is "Yes."
It's objective because, on a very fundamental level, there are some rules that simply must be applied as a rule for human society to function, like don't steal, kill, rape, or generally wrong another person.
It's subjective because, looking more closely at the world, assuming that they must be applied to every single situation (like it's wrong to steal if stealing some bread is the only thing keeping you and your family from starving, or it's wrong to kill even when someone else is trying to kill you and the only way to stop them is to kill them) causes a lot more problems than they solve, and trying to figure out where and when it works out can be extremely complicated.

Case in point, A few summers ago, I read William Vollman's Rising Up and Rising Down, a long treatise (3352 pages in its original; I only read the abridged version) trying to figure out a comprehensive answer to the question "when is violence justified." Eventually, the Moral Calculus he gives takes up 78 pages (in my edition) generally saying violence is only justified a) in immediate self-defense, or B) in defense of innocents. It ends up spending 78 pages trying to suss out the many issues surrounding those statements, and I'm sure ethicists can find some points where even that's too vague. And, of course, it took a long time to get to those 78 pages.