Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps no functional difference at that moment in time. Wouldn't the difference be that Persona A knew their morality was subjective and could be subject to changes over the course of time, experiences, authority influences, change of culture, change of location, emotions, even laziness etc.?

A persons assessment of morality being subjective doesn't imply or necessitate that their own would change over time, with experience, authority influences, changes of culture, changes of location, emotions, or laziness.  It's merely the acknowledgement that moral disagreement between themselves and others might be accounted for by those things.  All things being equal - drop me or you or anyone else in a society of cannibals and none of us are likely to ask for a big pile of ribs off the grill, right?  

Whereas wouldn't Person B's objective morality resist change? Magnify that over several cultures and a couple of generations, then large gaps in morality would be possible.

-Would- person b's morality resist change?  How resistant to change has the purportedly objective religious morality been?  Not very, in this outsiders opinion.  Sure, if a persons morality actually were based upon something objective it might resist change...but that ever changing field of religious morality ought to tell you something about it's sufficiency as an objective foundation.  You're all one revelation away from killing some schuck to cover your sins or raping and pillaging the enemy tribe.  

Or are you?  If not, why not?  For my part, my objective morality is positively amenable to change.  If we found out tomorrow that some livestock had a rich inner life and the current best practices did not adequately account for that I'd call livestock production a necessary evil.  

Point of both comments, is to show that moral malleability is not tied to it's objective or subjective status.  A deeply held subjective moral assessment can be very resistant to change..particularly since no external frame of reference is required. No amount of information will or even -can- force a change in opinion. Alternatively, a truly objective morality must, by necessity, change as relevant objective information comes to light.

My opinion is that most people believe in objective morality no matter what they want to call it. It is only the atheists who is more philosophical in nature that discovers that it must be subjective and label it so out of loyalty to the cause. 

What cause?  Why must morality be subjective? Why would a "more philosophical atheist" discover any such thing? I can;t fathom where these comments come from..what process was used to arrive at such opinions. It seems to me that objective morality is available to both theists and atheists...and while a purportedly objective morality based upon some god is not available to atheists..secular objective moralities -are- available to theists. The status of one;s belief and even the status of the existence of some god are both extraneous issues to the subject at hand.