Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

There are alot of words for positions that can make that claim.  Realism is among them.

I don't think moral reason can or does make the claim, "Mores are a mediation among feelings, ideas, and environmental factors."

You'd have to explain why you think that, or why you bolded the word feelings.  There's no obvious incongruity between the statement and a realist pov, realism doesn't deny the existence feelings.......or the need for moral systems to take them into account.  Misery is a feeling, the general proposition "Causing misery is bad" either purports to report a fact, gets that fact right..and so is true.....or it doesn't.

---

The moral positions of bats or volgons would be different, because what it's like to be a bat or a volgon is different than what it's like to be a human being.  They will have different feelings about things.

Sure.  What may cause us misery may not cause them misery.  Hell, they might not even have an an analog for misery.  If that were the case, then we would contend that regardless of whether or not causing misery was bad..they don't experience misery - we can't cause misery in them..there is no relationship up or downhill between our actions and their misery, because there is no misery to be had. 

We don't have to search out aliens or wait for bats to talk to figure this out.  There's a reason that kicking a rock carries no moral importance.  They don't experience misery..or any pain...and so the things that we might do to each other or other misery experiencing whatsits..which are wrong, would not be wrong to do to them..or, at least not wrong for the same reasons.  

Objectivism makes an explicit commitment to mind independent variables like that, I don't know why people get an impression to the contrary.  

If you want to argue that there are statistically normal feelings or mechanisms in people which lead them to behave a certain way, then that can be an objective basis for understanding morality.  But even then, it doesn't make mores objectively real.

Statistical normalcy does not constitute factual accuracy.   Think about how many people in the us believe in some variant of creationism.  It's normal for USians to think that - that doesn't make it true, or make creation real.  Realism does not contend that it does.