People disagree because “morality” can mean different things.

Short answer: **there’s no consensus**. The main positions are:

1. **Objective morality**
   - Moral truths exist independently of human opinions.
   - Example: “Torturing innocent people for fun is wrong” would be true even if a society approved of it.
   - This view is called **moral realism**.

2. **Human-invented morality**
   - Morality is created by humans, societies, evolution, or culture.
   - It helps cooperation, survival, and social order.
   - On this view, moral rules are more like systems we construct than facts “out there” in the universe.
   - This includes views like **relativism**, **constructivism**, and some forms of **subjectivism**.

3. **Middle-ground views**
   - Humans may invent moral systems, but not arbitrarily.
   - For example, because humans share needs like avoiding suffering, needing trust, and living socially, some moral norms emerge reliably across cultures.
   - So morality may be **constructed**, but constrained by human nature and facts about well-being.

A useful distinction:
- **Moral feelings** likely have evolutionary and social roots.
- But that doesn’t by itself prove whether moral truths are objective or not.

A common philosophical split:
- **If morality is objective:** we discover it.
- **If morality is invented:** we create and negotiate it.

My best neutral summary: **moral practices are clearly shaped by humans, but whether moral truth itself is objective is a philosophical question that remains unresolved**.

If you want, I can also give:
- the strongest argument **for** objective morality,
- the strongest argument **against** it,
- or how religion, science, and philosophy each approach the question.
