[drudman]

I don't post often anymore, but I have a degree in Phil, so I think I can help you.

Subjectivism says that all act tokens (specific instances of agents performing actions) are just that - merely things that happen. The thing that makes them special are that people decide to call them good or evil. But they are not "actually" good or evil. They are merely labeled, by people, as such. Thus, according to subjectivism, no action is good or evil. They merely bear those labels - and the may differ depending on who you ask.

This view is the opposite of objectivism, which says that all actions are objectively good or evil, regardless of what labels people might put on them.

Another way of thinking about this would be to say, let us consider the act token of the agent David Sklansky performing the act of proposing a challenge to theists at time X. According to objectivism, this act is intrinsically either good or evil. It doesn't matter that some people say it is good, and that some people say that it is evil - half are right, and half are wrong (committing an error in moral judgment). Subjectivism would say that the act isn't good or evil - it merely is something that generates moral judgments. But these judgments are only "real" insofar as the judgers believe that they are good or evil. They are not in fact, actually good or evil - that is to say, if there were no entities who were capable of making moral judgments, this act would not be good or evil.