I think the moral truth is in all of us. It there to be discovered and acknowledged. The think about moral values is they are not some object that we can pick up and measure. So it is the language we use, the claims, and the values we appeal to whether one thinks that these values are subjective or not. The fact that we appeal to them and are even forced to go along with them even when we don't want to via our conscience is support for objective morals.
How is that fact that our wishes can differ from our consciences support for objective morals?
If one person believes their conscience tells them a certain action is moral and another person believes their conscience tells them it is not, how can the objective moral truth be established? How can they determine which of them is correct or incorrect?
It's easy to claim that there is an objective moral truth, but if there is no way to determine what it is, it seems that you either acknowledge moral uncertainty, or assert moral certainty.
Technically if people were to follow subjective morality properly they would be saying that they have a particular view but they understand and accept that others have their own views and none are really wrong.
No. All subjectivity means is that individuals have their own moral views. Some think views that differ are wrong, some think views that differ are right for the individual that holds them, and some think it depends on the circumstances.
But as mentioned above most don't do that and impose their view on others like they hold the moral truth. Society does it in the laws they impose, organisations do it in the codes of conduct they impose on employees and international organizations do it in the Universal codes they impose on all cultures.
Society and organizations impose the rules they do for a variety of reasons, to maintain order, safety, to provide a sense of justice and recourse, to increase prosperity & well-being; to protect themselves, to maintain a good image, for efficiency and profit, etc. There may be moral grounding for some of those rules, but in general, only fundamentalist societies make a claim to moral truth, and that, I suspect, more for political and propaganda purposes than sincerity (although some of the population may take it literally).
Or consequentialism which would be more relevant for reasoning what is best for a given situation or culture.
Consequentialism, where, 'the ends justify the means', has its own problems.
Kantian ethics is more rule-based and doesn't allow reasoning. The moral right equates to following the rules or duties regardless of any reasoned outcome.
On the contrary, Kantian deontology is based on reason and requires reason in its application - the '
perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions' requires that you reason whether your choice of action would be self-contradicting if universally mandated or followed.
Not just that but how do we determine the basis for reasoning as what can be used to measure morality is also subjective.
See the Kantian 'Categorical Imperative' (above).
Human wellbeing may be the basis but as with consequentialism, the who and what can be subjectively determined. Also one can ask who says that human wellbeing should be the basis.
Human well-being (or at least the predisposition not to do harm without good reason) is often accepted as a universal (captured in the 'golden rule') and hence the dehumanisation of victim groups, but I agree, who says what should be the basis? In practice, moral frameworks are generally built on the innate sense of fairness, enlightened self-interest (e.g. the golden rule), and the requirements for group success (cooperation, reciprocity, etc).
It makes a difference now in the way society uses certain moral standards for all despite subjective views in which some laws are based on, or for organization ethical codes or international codes. I think it allows for us to have some clear and common moral values that we can base things on rather than being open to having morality undermined by whoever can make the best case not necessarily what is best or morally right. Or having morality bought by those in power or with money.
Sure, codifying some moral views into group rules and laws clarifies the situation, but following a rule or law doesn't mean you share its moral values, it's contractual - follow the rules - whatever your opinion - and you will share in the benefits; a contract more honoured in the breach...
But what about my question? People have differing moral views; if they all claim that their various views represent objective moral truths, what difference would that make? e.g. how is it different from subjective morality?
In some ways, we are seeing morality being more and more objectified in the way people are taking stands that behaviour should conform to certain moral standards and not allowing any subjective views. We see it on social media in movements like MeTo, WOKE, shame culture and how people are virtue signalling. Everyone knows there are moral truth and people are acknowledging this more and more.
And yet society is more polarised on what is and isn't right than it has been for many years...
Though there is also a modernistic movement happening at the same time where people are questioning and criticizing everything claiming that there is no moral truth to the point that any traditional values are being rejected especially by the young and in Universities.
The young have always questioned and criticised traditional values.