morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Zenith]

1.    Morality is an interesting topic. In my opinion even if there was an objective morality, like say, if morality was based on survival and the continuation of our
      species and everything done in support of it is what is considered moral - it would still be subjective because what one person does for his survival wouldn't  
      be what another person does for his survival and both can find each others actions immoral in accordance with their own values.
 
      In short, a person would consider what advantages that person moral and what disadvantages immoral. An action that advantages him could be what
      disadvantages someone else, this is the origin of subjective morality. The downfall of objective morality is that it doesn't factor in circumstances leading to
      an action, according to it certain actions are immoral no matter the circumstances. If taking the life of another was objectively immoral a person killing in
      self defense would be immoral. A selfish interest is always at play whenever an action is carried out and thus morality is ultimately subjective no matter the
      circumstances.

I was actually considering starting a new thread on morality, to explain this. I see morality as man's understanding of what's "helpful" and what is "harmful" for the community the man lives in. And I believe that there is no "abyss" between harmful and helpful in such a way that a thing could be either "helpful" or "harmful" but not both. Rather people usually try to find the thing that is most helpful and does the least harm in a specific circumstance, using the understanding and the knowledge they have available - that's morality.

Trying to declare morality as "objective", i.e. as something unchangeable, is basically forcing a solution that worked 2000 years ago onto a problem that exists in completely different circumstances, and therefore is no longer helpful.