Objective morality?

[Foucaulf]

"Subjective" and "objective" morality are notoriously hard to define. Fewer and fewer people would argue that a code of morality exists, suspended in the cosmos, and revealed to us with perfect clarity. Even fewer would argue the reverse: all moral statements are true because they are grammatically valid propositions (that would be stupidly trivial, wouldn't it?) An objectivism worthy of debate lies somewhere in the middle.

The accepted definition of "objective ethics" is the belief that when we say something is right or wrong, we are referring to some property of the world outside of the mind. This is important because you can't really have an ethical science - in the way that science ought to validate or falsify facts - without it. (Utilitarians, like the negative utilitarians Muon cites, really like this.) "Subjective" equals to anything that's not objective: we always have different ways of imagining goodness, morality is based off of what we feel, morality is BS, etc.

But "objective ethics," at least how people in this thread are using it, is referring to something like morality that applies to anyone, regardless of social context. Utilitarians like this too. Then subjectivism is defined as anything that is against that. (Except ethicists refer to "universalist/relativist ethics" instead of reusing words, thank god)

Why did I bother writing all that instead of giving an argument for objective ethics? Because I don't know any great ones off the top of my head, and it may be more illustrative to give an example for why it matters:

Pricing a life. Suppose you run over a teenager and she's now a quadriplegic. Is it right to ask you to reimburse your victim - even though you're behind on your debt - and how much?
-A subjective relativist may argue that, since there's no moral rightness outside of the mind, you and the teenager should just mediate a settlement on which both of you agree.
-A subjective universalist would think you have to be held to a common standard compared to everyone else, and have to be judged in court and ordered to repay an amount found socially commonplace, or a number economists remeasure every now and then. (This is what usually happens.)
-An objective relativist could argue that you have committed a moral wrong and has to pay, though it is up to the judge to dole out the punishment whichever way he pleases; it could be a small fine in one society and your right hand in another.
-An objective universalist would demand that recompensation be made and that there is a "right sum," which ought to have been discovered when considering past cases like these and which we can hope was written into precedent.

This matrix-style collection of beliefs is bizarre and unnatural, but I guess Atlas users are used to it. Choosing what I think is the best argument, I would be an objective universalist. Maybe you are too, who knows.