“Is morality objective or is it subjective? If you believe it’s objective, what is its source. If you believe it’s subjective, how do you know whose concept of morality is correct?
That is interesting question and I would argue that it varies on the age of the subject. I would say the basic moral code on to whit which most are weaned on is a little more objective in terms a basic successful society, it becomes subjective once goes more small scale and personal. If you break a law, in terms of objectivity you must be bought to book and it is then subject to a more a complicated interpretation.
Is it a crime to a steal load of bread to feed a starving person? In terms of objectivity, a theft is a theft, but subjectively it is a justified crime as it would be a far worse scenario to allow someone to starve to death. But then you have the subject of how can a moral society allow people to reach such a state that they have to steal in order to survive.
In the UK, food bank use is on the increase, and subjectively they are a moral obligation in order to look after your kin, but objectively they are a symptom of a decaying moral state where greed, profit and drive have over taken the driving force. A moral society seeks to improve for the many not the few. That’s how I view justifying my moral stance on life, how many does it benefit in the long run.