It depends on what you mean by “objective” and by “morality.” In metaethics (the study of what moral claims *are*), there are several major positions:

## 1) Morality is objective (moral realism)
**Claim:** Some moral statements are true or false independently of what any human thinks—roughly the way “water is H₂O” is true regardless of opinion.

**Why people believe this:**
- **Moral experience:** We talk and feel as if some acts (e.g., torturing children for fun) are wrong no matter what a society thinks.
- **Moral disagreement feels like factual disagreement:** We argue as if one side can be mistaken.
- **Convergence arguments:** Different cultures often converge on norms like prohibitions on murder within the group, promises mattering, etc. (though there’s huge variation too).

**Common challenges:**
- **Where do moral facts “fit” in the universe?** They’re not obviously measurable like physical facts.
- **Disagreement and cultural variation:** If morals are objective, why so much persistent disagreement?
- **Motivation:** Why would “moral facts” automatically motivate us?

## 2) Morality is invented (anti-realism / subjectivism / relativism)
**Claim:** Moral rules are human (or culture) made—products of emotions, preferences, social pressures, and coordination needs.

**Why people believe this:**
- **Anthropology/history:** Moral codes vary across times and societies.
- **Evolutionary and social explanations:** Empathy, reciprocity, punishment, and group cohesion can explain why we have moral instincts without needing objective moral facts.
- **No decisive “moral measuring device”:** Unlike physics, there’s no agreed method to test moral claims.

**Common challenges:**
- **“Anything goes” worry:** If morality is just invented, can we still say genocide is *really* wrong rather than merely disliked?
- **Moral reform:** It becomes harder to explain what it means to say a society’s moral norms were “mistaken,” not just “different.”

## 3) A middle family: morality is constructed, not discovered (constructivism)
**Claim:** Moral truths aren’t mind-independent “out there” like rocks, but they’re not arbitrary either. They’re the result of rational or practical construction under constraints—e.g., what rules free and equal agents could justify to one another, or what principles you’d choose under fair conditions.

**Why it appeals:**
- Preserves moral criticism and reform (“some norms can’t be justified to others”) without requiring mysterious moral facts.

## 4) Another hybrid: objective *within* a goal (naturalism / functional views)
**Claim:** If morality is about promoting certain human goods (well-being, flourishing, avoiding suffering, stable cooperation), then there can be objective answers about what works—much like medicine is objective *given* the goal of health.

**Key tradeoff:**
- The “goal” (e.g., well-being) may itself not be objectively mandatory; but once you accept it, many moral conclusions become more fact-like.

---

# So which is it?
- If you mean **objective like physics**, many philosophers doubt morality is objective in that exact sense, though moral realists defend it.
- If you mean **not arbitrary and not merely personal taste**, then many views (realism, constructivism, naturalistic accounts) can make morality “objective enough” to support genuine moral criticism and progress.
- If you mean **invented like a random game**, most accounts reject that; even anti-realists typically think morality is shaped by deep constraints (human psychology, suffering, interdependence, scarcity, power).

If you tell me what you’re using morality *for*—personal guidance, judging other cultures, grounding laws, or debating religion—I can map which view fits that purpose best.
