This is one of philosophy's most enduring questions. Here are some major positions worth considering:

**Arguments that morality is objective:**
- Some moral claims seem undeniably true (e.g., torturing innocents for fun is wrong) regardless of what anyone believes
- Moral disagreement seems meaningful — we argue as though there's a fact of the matter
- Moral realists point to possible grounding in natural facts, rational requirements, or abstract moral truths

**Arguments that morality is human-constructed:**
- Moral beliefs vary across cultures and eras, suggesting social origin
- Evolution could explain moral intuitions without them tracking objective truths
- It's hard to explain how objective moral facts would exist or how we'd access them

**Middle positions:**
- Morality could be constructed but not arbitrary — constrained by human nature, logic, or the requirements of cooperation
- It might be like math: discovered rather than invented, but only meaningful to minds capable of grasping it
- Some aspects might be objective (basic harm) while others are conventional (etiquette, specific norms)

**My honest reflection:** I find this genuinely unresolved. The strongest pull toward objectivity is that some moral claims feel non-negotiable. The strongest pull toward construction is the difficulty explaining what objective moral facts *are*. The answer may also depend on what we mean by "objective."

What draws you to the question?
