Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd add that not only is that not a good example to object to moral realism with, moral realism can produce clarity otherwise lacking in it.

It may not be the case that stealing bread "turns moral" when it's for a starving child, even if we allow it as morally permissible.  Exclusively sub optimal courses of action or outcomes -moral dilemma- is exactly the sort of thing an objective morality can solve..that a subjective morality simply cannot.  There is no such thing as resolving a floating difference of opinion.

So, faced with nothing but shit ways forward in the situation set up, we might pick the one that causes the least damage.  If we starve a kid, they die.  If we steal a loaf of bread...someone will be deprived of a loaf of bread.  The "lesser of two evils" bit is only cogent if one of those evils actually is lesser.

A moral realist can continue, if it happens to be the case that both evils are equal (say, you're stealing the bread from a person in the same starving kid situation), and if both evils are profound...a persons moral agency is compromised. They are wholly in the wrong, they may know it or they may not...but we understand why they did what they did and it may be that they could do no other thing...our notions of what they deserve on account of it are modified.

Stealing a loaf of bread - immoral.
Stealing a loaf of bread for a starving child - morally permissible
Stealing a loaf of bread for a starving child from a starving child - immoral.

I'm interested to see whether or not that describes anyone's moral intuitions better than a simple moral/not moral..and additionally whether something like that - which does possess an objective justification..is taken by some to be a demonstration or moral subjectivity or relativity?