This is one of philosophy's enduring questions, and thoughtful people disagree. Here are the main positions:

**Arguments for objective morality:**
- Some moral truths seem universal (e.g., torturing innocents for fun is wrong)
- Moral disagreement assumes there's something to be right or wrong *about*
- We speak of moral "discovery" and "progress," implying a standard beyond us
- Mathematical truths aren't invented; perhaps moral truths are similar

**Arguments morality is human-constructed:**
- Moral codes vary significantly across cultures and eras
- Evolution can explain moral intuitions without requiring objective truths
- No clear way to empirically verify moral facts
- We can fully explain morality through social contracts, emotions, and cooperation needs

**Middle positions:**
- Morality is objective *given* certain human facts (like our capacity to suffer), but those foundations are contingent
- Some moral principles are constructed, others discovered
- Morality is "intersubjective"—real within human frameworks but not mind-independent

My honest take: I find this genuinely uncertain. The persistence of core prohibitions (against murder, betrayal, cruelty) across societies suggests *something* more than pure invention, but whether that's objective truth or deep features of human nature is hard to settle.

What draws you to the question? That might help focus the discussion.
