Morality

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know anything about philosophy; and I'll be a liar if I said that I'm interested in it. To me; life is pretty much obvious; the shortest simple path is always the correct one; so no need for mazes and complications of what is simple.

In ideal circumstances, philosophy distills and clarifies.  When it's being used to confuse and obfuscate..it would be more accurate to call it a misuse....though, granted, it does have the effect of disabusing one of the notion that anything about life is pretty much obvious.

But a confrontation of opinion always take place, and always fills this forum about "morality"; is it "subjective or objective", what makes a moral code better than the other...etc.

I think the answer is pretty simple: the conclusion of the action is what tells us if it's "morally good" or "morally bad".
A matter of weighing of the act's pros against cons.

Consequentalist ethics.  Certainly an important component of any moral theory, but rarely the full picture.  The classic question being, do the ends justify the means?  

Let's take sex without an official contract. That type of sex is enjoyable, allows for more freedom in picking up the partner, go easy on the person's wallet. Confronted with the cons of the possibility of producing a child, and the possibility of hurting a current spouse emotionally to great degrees.

You're smuggling procreation and infidelity into "contractless sex".  More likely to confuse and obfuscate than distill and clarify...is this pretty much obvious?  

Judging the act as "morally good" or "morally bad" is subjective. Take me: personally; I would never cause misery to a yet-to be born infant; and ruin his/her childhood through making them go through the pain of the absence of a parent, just because I wanted to enjoy myself.

That's nice, but what about contractless sex?

But; that is subjective; totally. Others might not see it this way; others might consider my care "too much and mannered".

I consider your care predictably manufactured and entirely off subject, a subject which -you- proposed....actually.

And measure on all other acts. The conclusion is what decides what's morally good from what's morally bad. It's subjective in its core; and a majority of people adapting the act does not mean it's an objective matter; but lots of subjective opinions that formed a fist disguised in objectivity.

Objective morality isn't based on a large weight of subjective opinion, nor does it need to be solely determined by a specific conclusion of any given act. Most objective moral systems allow for consequentalist and deontological ethics (and more as well). Both the consequences of our actions and any duties we may perceive as relevant. They can even, as Benny mentioned above, include subjective perceptions as modifying factors in consequence and duty.