Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action. 

That's moral absolutism, not moral objectivism.  An objective morality -can- include objectively true things about particular moral agents, particular times, and particular cultures.  In fact it -has- to...or it isn't meaningfully objective.

An objective morality, as opposed to an absolutist morality, can tell you, for example..that it would be bad™ to do some thing x in one scenario...but not bad™ or even good™ in another.  Particularly in that the act is only bad if it meets the objective -conditions- for being bad...the same act in different conditions will not support the same moral conclusions.

It would be bad™ for example..for me to loot here, today, in my hometown.  It was -not- bad™ for a russian to loot, in stalingrad, during ww2.  Only in an absolutist morality can something be bad no matter who does it, where, or when.

In my experience (big disclaimer), religious nutters are moral absolutists (except when god does it, ofc)...not moral objectivists.  See what religious nuttery does to people?  Even when you identify some way that people are actually mistaken (alot of these supposed moral subjectivists describe a distinctly objective moral system)...you;'re compelled to pile further error atop that in order to "educate" them.

I think I agree.... to take a simple principle and make it absolute no matter what is.... well and oversimplification. 
I don't know that I share in your experience, but I don't think that morality is based on or dependent on the subject.  And most people do not act as if it is.

---

I don't think that it what the author is trying to convey.  He is working through logically what it entails if morality is subjective by nature (ontologically)  Most people and societies do not behave in this way.  If morals are subjective, then wouldn't it follow that you treat them on a per subject basis?  It is inconsistent to say that they are subjective, but then act as if they are objective. 

Expanding them to a societal agreement or cultural norm, doesn't help either.  You are just shifting the basis for the moral comparison to a larger group which comes to an agreement.  And it would be equally incorrect to compare one group to another in this case, as they do not share a common basis for their morality.  In this case, you cannot make any claim about justice or rights which countermand the group upon which they are based. 

Now the one thing that I have found in these conversations, is that a number of people misunderstand what is being talked about by saying "subjective".  It is not saying that I think that X is immoral here are the reasons why.  This has to do with how we know (epistemology).  It is saying that X is immoral regardless of the person.  That the basis or standard for what is moral or immoral is independent of the person (culture or time).  That the morality of the action in question doesn't change based on the individual (or societies) particular view, taste, or preference for that action.  Do you think that something becomes moral or immoral, because a person or society accepts or rejects it?   Or was it moral or immoral all along, and was discovered or realized by that person or society?

I think things are moral or amoral because societies and individuals accept or reject it. There is no such thing as moral or immoral outside of person, place and time. Those very things define the very nature of morality.
As comforting as the idea may be, we do not discover true morals, tm, the way we discover laws of physics. What is moral and right and seems obvious for us today may be horribly immoral and seen as harmful 100 years from now.

Also, as Kem explianed, it is clear that morals are derived subjectively, but then applied objectively. And you and the author are both confusing objectivity with absolutism. I can say that forcing someone to commit suicide when they turn 70 is, right now in my society, objectively immoral. No death panels. I cannot say that every society everywhere at everytime would agree, nor can I say it is absolutely immoral. Perhaps there will come a time when resources are so scarce, it is actually harmful to society to live much past your breeding and child rearing years. Once your children are grown, you need to free up resources for the next generation.

We cannot aply our morals derived today to any other place and time.

If you do hold to that, then I think that many of the things that Koukl derived would also apply.