Morality has both invented and objective elements, depending on what you mean by “objective” and which parts of morality you look at.

Here’s a structured way to see it:

---

## 1. Three main positions

1. **Moral realism (objective morality)**  
   Claims:
   - Some moral claims are true or false independently of what anyone thinks.
   - Example: “Torturing an innocent child for fun is wrong” would be true even if a whole society approved of it.
   - Variants:
     - Theistic: moral truths grounded in God or a divine nature.
     - Naturalistic: moral truths grounded in facts about human flourishing, suffering, well-being, etc.

2. **Anti-realism (morality is invented / constructed)**  
   Claims:
   - There are no stance-independent moral facts.
   - Moral norms are products of:
     - Evolution (instincts about fairness, cooperation, kin protection)
     - Culture (religions, laws, customs)
     - Individual psychology (empathy, disgust, loyalty)
   - Saying “X is wrong” is more like expressing an attitude, a social rule, or a practical commitment than reporting an objective fact.

3. **Middle views (constructed but not arbitrary)**  
   Claims:
   - Morality is human-made, but not in a “anything goes” sense.
   - Given certain *non-moral* facts about humans, some moral systems are more rationally defensible than others.
   - Example:
     - Fact: Humans are vulnerable, social, capable of pain and joy, need cooperation to survive.
     - Given those facts, a system that permits unlimited cruelty, deception, and exploitation will predictably destroy trust, safety, and cooperation.
   - So norms against murder, cruelty, lying, etc. can be “objectively better” in the sense that they better serve widely shared human needs and values.

---

## 2. Why people think morality is objective

Arguments and intuitions:
- **Strong moral reactions:** We respond to genocide, slavery, torture as if they’re not just “against our culture” but *really* wrong.
- **Convergence on core norms:** Across cultures you see prohibitions on random killing, stealing within the group, betrayal, etc. This looks like we’re discovering something about human life, not just making things up.
- **Reason-giving:** Moral claims seem to demand reasons that others could, in principle, see as compelling (“It causes unnecessary suffering,” “It treats people as mere tools”).

Realists say: this suggests we are tracking real moral facts, not just tastes.

---

## 3. Why people think morality is invented

Arguments and observations:
- **Massive disagreement:** Cultures and eras disagree on slavery, gender roles, sexuality, animal ethics, honor, punishment, etc.
- **Historical change:** Norms shift with economics, technology, religion, and power structures.
- **Evolutionary explanation:** We can explain many moral instincts (care for kin, punishment of cheaters, in-group loyalty) via natural selection without invoking objective moral truths.
- **Is–ought gap:** From purely descriptive facts (“people suffer”) you don’t *logically* get a moral “ought” (“therefore you must not cause suffering”) unless you add a value premise.

Anti-realists say: the best explanation is that morality is a human (and perhaps biological) construction.

---

## 4. A plausible synthesis

Many philosophers and scientists today lean toward a **constructivist / naturalistic** view:

- **Not “written into the universe” like physics:**  
  If there were no beings capable of experience, nothing would be “wrong” in a moral sense. Morality is about how experiences and lives go for sentient beings.

- **Not merely arbitrary opinion:**  
  Once you grant some basic starting points most humans share:
  - We experience pain and pleasure.
  - We prefer not to suffer or be dominated.
  - We need cooperation and trust.
  - We are vulnerable and roughly equal in relevant ways.
  
  …then some moral norms follow more or less *inevitably* if you reason consistently:
  - Systems that allow unrestricted violence, lying, and exploitation undermine everyone’s long-term interests.
  - Norms of reciprocity, fairness, and protection of persons are more stable and justifiable.

In that sense:
- Morality is **human-made** (it arises from our nature, needs, and negotiations).
- But within that human context, some moral norms are **better supported by reasons and consequences** than others, so they aren’t just “anything goes.”

This gives a kind of **objective-for-beings-like-us** morality: conditional objectivity.

---

## 5. A concise bottom line

- If “objective” means “true independently of any minds or values whatsoever,” morality likely isn’t objective.
- If “objective” means “not just personal whim; justified by shared facts about human (and sentient) life, and by coherent reasoning from widely held aims,” then many central moral norms *are* objective in that weaker, but important, sense.
- Morality is best seen as a **reason-guided, evolving human construction** constrained by facts about what we are and what helps or harms us.

If you tell me which side you’re more inclined toward (realism vs “it’s all made up”), I can zoom in on arguments specifically for or against that position.
