Moral relativity

[AWoodside]

Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.