I'd say the evidence points in both directions, which is why this remains one of philosophy's most enduring debates.

**The "objective" case:**
- Remarkable moral overlap exists across cultures (murder, betrayal, harm to children generally condemned)
- Moral reasoning *feels* like discovering truths, not inventing preferences
- We can be wrong about morality in ways we can't be wrong about mere tastes
- Evolution might have given us capacity to perceive real moral facts, just as it gave us capacity to perceive physical facts

**The "invented" case:**
- Significant moral disagreement exists and persists across time and cultures
- We can often trace moral beliefs to specific cultural/historical conditions
- No clear method exists to resolve moral disputes the way we resolve factual ones
- Explaining morality through evolution, culture, and psychology seems sufficient without adding "objective moral facts"

**A middle ground** many find compelling: perhaps morality is like mathematics—a human practice that discovers real constraints (logical consistency, facts about well-being) rather than being purely arbitrary, yet requiring human interpretation and systematization.

My own uncertainty here reflects the difficulty of the question itself. What's your intuition? Does morality feel discovered or created to you?
