This splits into genuinely hard questions:

**The "objective" case rests on:**
- Moral facts seem to constrain us (slavery *is* wrong, not just disliked)
- We appeal to standards beyond mere preference
- Convergence across cultures on basics (fairness, harm-avoidance)

**The "invented" case rests on:**
- No clear mechanism for how moral facts would exist physically
- Dramatic historical variation in what counts as right
- Morality tracks our interests and emotions suspiciously well

**Middle positions worth considering:**
- **Constructivism**: morality emerges from rational reflection on human needs, not floating in space but not purely arbitrary either
- **Pluralism**: some moral facts might be objective while others are culturally constructed
- **Pragmatism**: the question might matter less than whether moral reasoning works to resolve conflicts

The honest answer: philosophers remain divided. The objectivity intuition is strong, but defending it rigorously is genuinely difficult. Treating morality as if it's objective often produces better outcomes regardless.

What angle interests you most—the metaphysics, whether objectivity matters practically, or something else?
