This is one of philosophy's most enduring questions, with compelling arguments on multiple sides:

**The case for objective morality** suggests that some moral truths exist independently of what humans think - that torture for fun would be wrong even if everyone believed otherwise. We seem to discover rather than invent moral progress (like recognizing slavery as wrong), and we can genuinely debate ethics as if there are right answers to find.

**The case for human invention** points out how moral views vary dramatically across cultures and history, often tracking local needs and customs. Our moral intuitions appear shaped by evolution for cooperation and survival. And unlike facts about physics, we can't point to moral facts "out there" in the world.

**Middle positions** are also worth considering - perhaps some core principles (like fairness or harm prevention) are objective, while specific applications are culturally constructed. Or maybe moral truths emerge from facts about conscious experience and wellbeing.

The question remains genuinely open. Even philosophers who've spent careers on it remain divided. What's fascinating is that the answer might affect how we think about moral disagreement, progress, and responsibility - yet most of us navigate ethical life quite well despite the uncertainty.

What's your intuition? Do you find yourself leaning toward either view?
