**Individual morals aside, our legal systems have contributed to the creation of moral rules on a societal level, effectively creating an objective standard** - As a society , we agreed that murder is wrong, no matter the circumstances (including euthanasia), and put this into our laws ( a set of rules that everyone has to follow) - However, it does not mean that individually we agree that euthanasia is wrong. There are some people that support the idea of euthanasia, and those that liken the process the murder. The same can be said for abortion. - This demonstrates that society has determined some objective standards for morality and enshrined them in the law. This enables some objectivity for the state and permits the individual to exercise their free will and act according to their own set of morals. - However, with morality, concepts are constantly changing. A few decades prior, homosexuality was not only immoral but also illegal. This means that even if morality was objective, it is subject to review.

**Human conceptions of what is 'good' and what is 'bad' do not extend beyond our limited perception. Our ideas about morality are ['contingent'] (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100226735#:~:text=A%20contingent%20truth%20is%20one,not%20have%20to%20be%20true.) truths that reflect and are dependent upon our development as a species.** - 'Objectivity' in the sense of having reality independent of the human mind doesn't hold concerning ideas of morality. For one thing - our basic senses of what's good and what's bad are tied to our emotions and our need for survival. It's no coincidence that all the explanations people have for why, for example, it's wrong to kill, boil down to being on the same side of the argument. A Utilitarian would say it's because it causes the least harm, a Christian would cite a passage from the Bible... but the basic sense is that it is 'wrong'. - [This article] (https://medium.com/s/story/objective-subjective-and-contingent-708e6c9a5f09) puts it well - "Does steak taste better than chalk? Yes, it does, and yet this isn't objective. Steak tastes better than chalk to (most of) us because we're humans with particularly evolved tastes, but this isn't the same for many animals - so it's not an objectively true statement. 'Steak tastes better than chalk' is a contingent truth with respect to human beings. It makes sense to treat it as more or less objective with respect to humanity, but it breaks down when you try to go beyond that." - Our morals & ideas of what's right and what's wrong can be thought of similarly. There are a million different human-based explanations for why it's wrong to kill - but if you try to go beyond humanity, and think of 'not killing each other' as an objective moral law originating from the universe - it breaks down. It feels objective to us, but there's no grounding for it being true outside of our collectively limited consciousness. - Rather than being 'objectively' true, our morality is contingent upon how we have developed as a species. Both in the way that steak tastes good to us because it provides protein in our diets & how we don't kill each other, because we've found it more beneficial to live cooperatively.

The nature of morality—whether it is objective or subjective—is a long-standing philosophical debate with compelling arguments on both sides. For: Universal Principles: Some argue that certain moral principles (e.g., prohibitions against murder or theft) are universal and independent of individual opinions or cultures, indicating an objective basis for morality. Moral Realism: Philosophical moral realism holds that moral facts exist independently of human beliefs, similar to mathematical truths or scientific facts. Against: Cultural Variation: Different societies and cultures have varying moral codes, suggesting that morality is shaped by social, historical, and personal contexts, which points to subjectivity. Ethical Relativism: Some ethical theories argue that what is “right” or “wrong” depends on individual or cultural perspectives, with no absolute moral truths.