allhart is spot on.
SUBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES:
Below is a quote from secular humanist and Professor of Philosophy, Theodore Schick, Jr. in his article, 'Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely "Subjective"'.
"Subjectivism, then, fails to meet the criteria of adequacy for ethical theories: it sanctions obviously immoral actions, it implies that people are morally infallible, and it denies that there are any substantive moral disputes. Because it is inconsistent with our considered moral judgments and our experience of the moral life, it is not an acceptable ethical theory."
So what does he believe? That moral standards are self-evident and justify themselves!
"You don't need any additional evidence to support your belief. What makes self-evident truths self-evident is that they do not stand in need of any further justification; they justify themselves."
And that's his answer! That moral values just exist; they're just there! I know what it means to say that some action or person is just, but I don't understand how the value 'justice', just exists as some sort of abstract moral value!?
OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES:
Below is a quote from the book 'God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist' by atheist Walter Sinnott Armstrong who is a professor of ethics. He is a specialist in ethical and moral theory.
"(William Lane) Craig next asks, 'If God did not forbid rape, what makes rape immoral objectively?' This question is supposed to be hard for atheists to answer, because Craig seems to assume that on “the atheistic view” (which one?) what makes rape wrong is some cost to the rapist or to society (Craig did not assume this). But atheists can give a better answer: What makes rape immoral is that rape harms the victim in terrible ways. The victim feels pain, loses freedom, is subordinated, and so on. These harms are not justified by any benefits to anyone. Craig still might ask, 'What’s immoral about causing serious harms to other people without justification?' But now it seems natural to answer, “It simply is. Objectively. Don’t you agree?”
And that's his answer! You can see that when it comes to justifying his starting point, he can't do it.
But theists can.