This is a genuinely contested philosophical question. Here are the main positions honestly represented:

## Arguments That Morality Is Objective
- Some things seem wrong regardless of opinion (torturing innocents for fun)
- Moral progress seems real - we actually *discovered* slavery was wrong, not just changed preferences
- Mathematical truths are mind-independent; maybe moral truths are similar
- Strong moral intuitions might track real facts

## Arguments That Morality Is Human-Constructed
- Moral beliefs vary significantly across cultures and history
- No clear mechanism for how moral facts would exist independently
- Evolutionary psychology explains moral intuitions without requiring objective facts
- We can't empirically detect moral properties the way we detect physical ones

## Honest Complications
- The strongest versions of both positions have serious problems
- "Objective" vs "invented" may be a false binary - some philosophers argue morality is **intersubjective** (constructed but genuinely binding)
- Even if constructed, some moral systems may be more coherent or well-reasoned than others
- Strong moral intuitions are evidence worth taking seriously, even if not conclusive

## My Assessment
I think this question deserves genuine uncertainty rather than confident assertion either way. The **moral realist** and **constructivist** positions both capture something important.

What draws you to this question? The answer actually matters for how you approach specific moral questions.
