Originally Posted by Rimuel
Subjective morality wouldn't be morality anymore. It would mean that all things we consider "ethical" are arbitrary, that right or wrong is dependent on the state of the subject (e.g. victim of a rape).
Suppose someone tells you that rape is ethical. If you are a moral subjectivist, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) try to say that it is unethical, because whether something is ethical or not is dependent on the state of the person considering it. Yet virtually every rape victim would feel traumatized by the event.
Moral subjectivism also means that whether something is ethical or not, depends on the state of the perpetrator/victim. Under this system, an angry person can justify killing his boss just because he thinks it is ethical to kill someone who made you angry. Imagine what kind of turmoil this can evoke in the world if all laws were based on this philosophy.
Depending on what you mean by "evidence", there could be sufficient evidence for objective morality.
Just because everyone holds unique morals does not make morality subjective. Objectivity is in the first place independent of humans.
Again, who determines truly objective morality?
Secondly, morality is always societal. But a society can have any morality it chooses. In the US, tomorrow the many could revert to Jim Crow, bring back slavery, or confiscate the property of all wealthy WASPs. Anything truly is acceptable in the human condition.