Subjective Morality?

[Angrboda]

And a moral realist would argue that there exists an objectively existing context in which moral propositions are either true or false.  The moral realist may be wrong about that, or she may be unable to demonstrate that satisfactorily, but it would be incorrect to suggest, as Rob has, that such a position cannot be defined or coherently maintained.  It can.  I'm not clear whether you are making a similar objection to that which Rob has made.  Are you?

I have a problem with dealing with semantics at this level.  For me, at extremes, polar opposites break down into superposition a la QM.

An example would be the concept of subjectivity itself.  In a deterministic universe, what does subjectivity even really mean?  After all, the mind is just the experience of some component of brain function, which is an object.  In an experiential existence, what does objectivity even really mean?  After all, even cold, hard facts are known only through the agency of a subjective experiencer.

All this being said, I'd say that in this kind of argument, we are assuming substance dualism, practically if not really-- a subjective experiencer, and an objective universe which is experienced.  In that context, I see individual mores as an interaction between learned ideas and direct experience.  There are no mores "out there" anywhere which I would say to have objective truth.

ob·fus·ca·tion
/ˌäbfəˈskāSH(ə)n/
noun

the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation"