One thing that grinds my gears is the notion that "subjective" must equal "arbitrary." That is, anyone can make up her or his own morality on the spot. But this is bullshit even with regards to subjectivity. Yes, someone can "make up a rule" so to speak. But just because one can do such a thing artificially, doesn't mean his inner consciousness of the moral law is true. On the other hand, someone else who adheres to a principle he subjectively perceives is right, can very well rule out any artificial concepts which do not jive with the inherent 'rightness' of his subjective moral valuation.
Morality is subjective, in my opinion at least. If there were no minds there would be no moral obligations or laws. But just because moral laws are dependent on minds doesn't make them arbitrary because minds themselves are not arbitrary, at least not completely. Two people with very different backgrounds can both perceive the emotion of sadness and come to similar conclusions regarding it. In that sense the moral claims we make on each other are inter-subjective, and this should be enough for morality, imo.
Morality is subjective, in my opinion at least. If there were no minds there would be no moral obligations or laws. But just because moral laws are dependent on minds doesn't make them arbitrary because minds themselves are not arbitrary, at least not completely. Two people with very different backgrounds can both perceive the emotion of sadness and come to similar conclusions regarding it. In that sense the moral claims we make on each other are inter-subjective, and this should be enough for morality, imo.
