To me morality is definitely not objective but not totally subjective either. Morality is needed for animals and humans living and co-operating in groups for mutual benefit. It is a code of conduct that partly is induced by evolution and made us to act morally instinctively. In a group, a tribe or even a nation you should not kill each other, you should be able to trust each other, share resources etc. All these things are vital to a successful society and evolution has inclined us to punish those that don't follow these rules.
Besides the evolutionary instinct men have developed cultures that have fine-tuned the moral laws to create more advanced societies and have built moral infrastructures and institutions that enforce morality. In a modern democratic nations most citizens have a common moral view that is implied in laws and in moral conduct rules about what is right and wrong. However that doesn't imply that every person will follow her inherited intuition and the moral conduct but instead will go for her specific personal interests. Such persons like free riders and cheaters may get along with their behaviour if they are very clever but most "unmoral" persons will not succeed in the long run.
This is a condensed description of my (materialistic) view on morality.
So a few comment to earlier posts
Page 6 by Kurieuo » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:19 pm (note that this is local time).viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42169&start=75
"Now, the question is, for someone who believes in Materialism, why do we have this moral conscience? Given we have the power to ignore it, and do contrary to it, even desensatise ourselves to it, why should we continue listening to it? You can't say because it is "good" or "honourable" to do so, for it is neither more good and honourable that a lion kills off another lion to protect its territory and pack. It just is the way of nature. If humans are the way of nature too, nature is all there is, then why should we transcend nature, even think we can do so, if indeed nature is all there is? Unless we can transcend the natural order, then there is no more good or honourable, just perhaps something like survival and a protective instinct when it comes to one's way of life."
Why we have this moral conscience is clear, because it is beneficial to our society. To me it is good and honourable to work for my family and other persons to give them a good life. As a materialist I have no wish to transcend natural order.
page 7 by Philip » Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:23 pmviewtopic.php?f=19&t=42169&start=90
"So, a purely materialistic worldview would assert that neither [killing cows nor killing humans] is ultimately wrong - that it's how one views that is all merely personal opinion. But most people who have only a materialistic view of things would never deny murder was a horrendous wrong, correct? Why?"
It doesn't follow that an act is only about ones personal opinion from that an act isn't ultimately wrong. It can be wrong according to ones intuitions, common understanding or law. If you came to live in a country that was completely governed by materialistic considerations (some countries in Northern Europe come close) I am certain that you would appreciate if it were commonly thought that it is horrendous wrong for someone to kill you, your wife, or children.
Page 8, by RickD » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:38 pmviewtopic.php?f=19&t=42169&start=105
"Without an objective source for morality, morality would only be subjective. And one person's subjective morality can't be any better than another person's. Without an objective source for morality, killing Jews, or killing an insubordinate slave, or killing unborn humans, is no worse than clubbing a baby seal, or killing a dog, or chopping the head off a snake."
As I answered Philip above there is a third alternative. What is best to a group or a society is not objectively set, it depends on the circumstances. But a morality that is based on instincts and the best outcome for the group isn't completely subjective (based on a single person's feelings), the morality is (in an ideal world) based on the best outcome for the group.
PS How do I get the exact "start" number in the links? The link is now pointing at the start of the page not to the actual post.
I would be nice to have the posts numbered so one can use them for reference.