@CodedLogic:
When I say "moral" I mean the process of critical (and sometimes heuristic) thinking we use to evaluate the actions and behaviors of ourselves and others.
Since the process of thinking if different for each person, doesn't that imply that morality is subjective?
Most generally, the metric we use for that evaluation is the well being of sentient creatures.
For those with a better developed sense of morality, yes.
For those (blindly) following sets of rules (such as homosexuality is immoral), the set of rules is the metric.
While the word "moral" may cover a broad range of concepts and ideas - it doesn't then follow that morality is subjective. People use the word "red" in a lot of different ways at different times. But it doesn't then follow that when I say something is "red" its color is entirely arbitrary or subjective.
For your example of colors, I agree. Someone stating that all cars are red doesn't make green cars red.
However, different reactions to the same situation can both be viewed as moral or immoral, depending on your viewpoint.
An interesting example of this is found in Heinz's dilemma.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
There are of course multiple reasoning as to why Heinz should or should not steal the medicine (see the article for more background).
Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.
Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.
Apparently depending on a person's viewpoint, an conclusion reached about the morality of (not) stealing the medicine can go both ways, even when contemplating fundamental values such as universal human ethics.
Hence my conclusion that morality is subjective (especially when compared to assumed absolute morality coming from any God(s) or sacred texts).
I first read about Heinz's dilemma when still in, and I was kinda shocked that apparently my moral compass was on the lowest level: obedience. Of course that is what you get from being raised to be obedient to parent, elders, GB and God.
Love this discussion, eager to see your viewpoint