Subjective morality assumes this as well; the only difference is objective means it can be demonstrated. Because morality can’t be demonstrated it is subjective.
Honestly though, I don't entirely agree with that.
I have no problem at all with the idea that, at least in part, morality is a rather objective thingy to an extent. Or perhaps "pseudo-objective".
I'll try and explain.....
In the end, what IS morality?
I'ld say it is some sort of "code of conduct" which doesn't exist simply for it's own sake, but rather to achieve a certain goal. That goal being a peacefull society/world where well-being, freedom and prosperity is maximized for all sentient beings.
I think it's safe to say that that is the entire "point" of morality. To ensure social cohesion, to ensure the existence of a society where "life is good", where love and solidarity outrank hate and selfishness.
Every action / decision we as members of a society engage in, ultimately have impact on other people or even the entire group. When making moral judgements, essentially the question we ask is what that impact is and if it benefits the "moral goals" of a group or if it is detrimental to it.
This is why stealing is universally seen as "wrong" in general. Because it is detrimental to societal concepts like peace, love, solidarity, respect, rights of property, freedom, etc.
So essentially, whenever we make a moral judgement, we engage in rational reasoning: a rational evaluation of the facts followed by a factual analysis of its implications, impact and eventual consequences.
That, by itself, is about as an objective reasoning process as you can get.
We have a starting point and a desired end-point. And wheter or not a certain action sets us on the road to that end-point is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of demonstrable fact.
Stealing, raping, enslavement, murder,... none of those things factually sets us on a path to a peaceful and loving society. To me, that makes them as
objectively wrong as it gets.
The only thing you could argue here to not be "objective", is the desired end-point. But even there, I'ld dare to call that debatable.
In any case, assuming we all agree on the desired end-point.... then the road towards that end-point is rather objective. Because, as you say, it is a matter of "demonstrable fact" in terms of impact etc.
I can come up with a scenario where saving a life is NOT more moral. Thats subjectivity.
Agreed.
However imo, "objective morality" doesn't mean that X is true "at all times in all circumstances". There's no reason why something can be reasoned/evaluated
objectively, while also keeping into account circumstantial parameters. Or "context", if you will.
After all... when you say "x is immoral" and I ask you why.... it's not like you are going to answer "because I believe it is..."
Nope. I'm quite sure that you'll be able to actually present a reasoned and rational argument, based on facts, to motivate your moral judgement.
And if someone counters your argument with a better agument, I'm sure you'll change your mind instead of dogmatically sticking to your "opinion". Right?
So, in summary....
I say morality is both objective and subjective.
The subjective part, is the desired end-goal (to an extent).
The objective part is the process of how you come to a moral evaluation/judgement, given the facts and the desired end-goal.
This is why I'm fine with the term "pseudo-objective".