Actually, I agree. I have engaged with others in this thread who claimed that theirs was more qualified than mine due to being based objectively in something divine by simply mirroring their rhetoric from a secular perspective, but ultimately I believe there can be no moral discussion without reference to the end goal of morality, which requires subjective input. My basis for morality is no more rational than anyone else’s.
Agreed. But we still want to get to a point where we can discern, in a robust manner rather than a loose one that befits solipsism, that we're being morally reasonable in our assertions. However imperfectly may do so, we still have to achieve some level of mutually recognizable justification for our reasoning. Otherwise, we're just slinging mud at each other in the name of "morality."
It'd be really odd if we each insists that we're "going to do our own thing, regardless, and other people can simply kiss our butts" where Ethics and morality are concerned. It'd be particularly obnoxious if we were to do so, all the while remaining not only clueless but also haphazard in our personal insistence about the morality we actually choose to undertake, wouldn't it?
This sounds time and labor intensive for this medium.
It just a part of becoming more educated and informed (and responsible) about the nature of Ethics and the human acts of morality we need to effect. Becoming better educated in the realm of Ethics also helps us see that 'subjectivity' is, itself, open to interpretation and that what is one person's relative conception of 'subjectivity' isn't necessarily equal to another person's concept of subjectivity. They're not all the same nor of equal quality. In the process of more educated inquiry, we may even find other, better terms which apply to our daily perceptions and cognitions about Ethics. Perhaps a term like Inter-subjectivity or Sobjectivity, or other similarly minted terms might have more conceptual relevance than do either subjectivit or objectiviity. Moreover, it's not too much to say that loose, flimsy ideas of "subjectivity" may lead to the accumulation of too many unjustified beliefs about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.'
In the process of academically surveying and analyzing the field of a topic, we then can discern more clearly where our own previous inclinations and assumptions may have been faulty, especially where the moral quality of actual human interaction is of prime importance.
But, I get it. Studying is time consuming, and sometimes difficult to come by. When I was in college, it was not uncommon for me to hear a number of fellow students who sat with me in various Ethics, Philosophy and Sociology classes complain about the amount of convoluted study they had to endure every semester.
To some extent, that's just the way it is, even if we're on a public forum. 
