General question about the possibility of objective moral truth

[GrandizerII]

As a portion of the population the number is fairly small. Just as the number of people with genetic diseases is small. It is not advantageous, but it does happen.

At the very end you probably CAN'T provide an objective reason to the person who does not value life or positive social consequences.

Then gets to the rather nasty bit, we as a society IMPOSE some of our moral judgements. It is very hard to justify this objectively. Why does the majority get to impose their moral judgements on the minority? This is something I'm still working out on my own. There is some evidence to indicate that these people are sick, and as such it would indicate that their judgements and values might not be completely sound. But again, what is the objective justification? I don't think there is one. I'm not comfortable with that, but that might just be the way it is.

I think, every human being who thinks about morality has to admit, that his feelings of what is right or wrong, are – if he is honest to himself – claiming to be more than just a subjective feeling. If a fighter of the IS is knocking at my door with the intention to cut off my head then I will hardly think: “OK, in my opinion it’s wrong what he wants to do, but in his own opinion it is right – so, at the end we are both equal and none of us is more right with his point of view than the other.” –Honestly, I will insist, that I AM the one who see the things OBJECTIVELY right in that moment and not the IS fighter. But I can only be right with that if morality actually can be true in itself.
If morality has NO truth in itself, then our own feelings about Right and Wrong are cheating us.

If someone approaches you with a machete or whatever with the intention to chop off your head, the last thing on your mind should be whether or not morality is objective/subjective. More important to ... you know ... protect yourself from harm.