Can morality ever be objective or is it always subjective?

Morality has an objective reality insofar as it is widely agreed as the dominant set of ethics for a particular culture.

Ethics are subjective and personal.

There is frequently a high degree of overlap between these two.

But it is possible for an individual to be highly ethical and yet not following the majority of morals held by the surrounding culture.
An animal rights or ecological activist would be an example on the positive side.
A crime syndicate boss or a terrorist would be an example on the negative side.

I'm going with subjective, but I think the search for objective morality should be a moral imperative.

In my subjective opinion, of course.

That's a really tough one.. as we have no proof either way, it's always going to be debatable.... and a big debate at that!

I think certain things are logic.. in terms or morality.. we do know it varies from culture .. for instance most people believe killing is immoral... but cannibals and head-hunters did it.. However, even they didn't do it or want it done to their family... so there was still some moral sense there?

Animals have varying but still strong codes of behaviour and almost ethics...

Oh now I need to take time for this question .... it’s a brilliant question... I need time lol

It's often down to circumstance.. murder is wrong if it is committed on a person who hasn't done any harm and was a victim of senseless violence but if I wouldn't say it is wrong if somebody did in response to someone senselessly murdering a relative of theirs just because they could.

I think it is always a matter of circumstance which cannot always be measured because there are so many factors.

To kill Hitler is the morally right thing to do, but to kill baby Hitler is wrong, subjectivity is why morality is so arbitrary... it's Immoral to own slaves, but African tribes have done it for centuries, do the blacks reperate themselves???? The world may never know....

Even a single culture can't make up its mind. Things that used to be okay a century ago aren't anymore and vice versa. So clearly it is subjective.

How do we decide which culture got it right? History taught is there is no such thing as getting it right when it comes to morals.

It can be more or less shared, or even unanimous, but it still remains subjective.

You can't observe and define it scientifically, like I don't know, a physical law.

It can only be objective if there is a God and all morality comes from that God. While it is man made it is subjective.