The meanings of objectivity, subjectivity, and relativity are the center of most debates surrounding issues of morality, values, and ethics. The word "objective" tends to be held in a higher regard than "subjective," typically finding itself with some sort of assumed merit, whereas "subjective" is considered nearly irrelevant.

Christians, typically found at the root of the blame for the argument of "absolute morality," take a good deal of heat over the issue of relative morals.

When researching subjective morality, you'll find that non-believers of a higher power-- even self-proclaimed atheists-- will typically agree that there is a universal understanding of some things being strictly wrong. This speaks to the fact that no matter where you go, the general population will agree that things such as murder, rape, and child abuse are wrong things to do and/or participate in/facilitate.

The Overton Window-- also described as the window of discourse-- is a politically-centered ideal suggesting that there will always be a stream of questionable things that the public will allow (particularly within government). But once reaching a certain point, most will step back, admitting that it's been taken too far, resulting in politicians having to move back into the range of the non-radical.

The Overton concept very much applies to morality, as it's very similar to the "foot-in-the-door" theory. Commonly used in reference to social psychology, the foot-in-the-door theory claims that small requests pave way for larger ones, and attempts to explain the reasoning behind situations resulting in what seems like completely unprecedented behavior, but may have began with simply choosing to hang out with the wrong crowd, who may have convinced you to attend a certain event, and so on.

Even in the criminal justice system, there are two categories of crime behaviors. Meaning that crimes will either fall under "mala prohibita" or "mala en se." Mala prohibata are termed as "moral offenses," covering most victimless crimes, such as nudity and gambling. Mala en se are crimes strictly prohibited by law and are considered universally evil, such as rape, murder, and torture.

Subjectivist strive to explain away this world-wide basis of understood right and wrong by theories of either us having been born with a sort of moral compass innately embedded in the depths of our human DNA, or with the idea that morality developed throughout evolution, developing alongside a higher intelligence.

"Subjectivity measures nothing consistently." - Toby Beta

Severely strict advocates of subjective morality claim that morality as a whole is undefined. Insisting that depending on the era, location, and situation, morality can and will shift. Unarguably, this sort of subjective morality definitely comes in handy when attempting to justify poor decisions, especially if those choices can be blanketed with the statement: "morality isn't concrete."

The flaws with this argument can be boiled down to two major points. The first being this:

1. Values are subjective. Ethics are subjective. But they aren't the same thing as morals.

Morality is definitely shaped by your religious views, but religious or not, the basis of morality remains.

Values are beliefs that are individualized. How you feel about drunkenness, gambling, or premarital sex, is subjective. From a religious perspective, a large number of Christians will be quick to term these values as "moral absolutes," tending to consequently cast a poor light on the relevance of their argument on the matter. As a Christian, believing that what the Bible commands is considered an absolute to the Christian community. Yet, this is also true of other texts in any other religion or non-religion.

It's hard to say whether or not gambling is specifically evil, because that assumption is a personal conviction either way. Values from person to person will be as different as night and day, and that's because they are subject to change and subject to the individual. Despite this, basic objective morals cannot be subject to change, as true facts never are. Two parties may disagree on whether or not you should move in with your boyfriend before you marry them, but both will typically agree that serial rapists are evil.

Ethics are not strictly objective either, seeing as how you can believe one thing, and physically carry out the act of another. Ethics are failing, simply because we are imperfect, and fail to properly uphold all convictions at all times. Ethics, based off of objective morality and subjective values, fall most commonly under the category of subjectivity, as actions aren't failproof in matching beliefs.

And, 2. With subjective morality, there is no basis of right and wrong.

Sure, right and wrong can sometimes be a gray area. But in specific cases, it's absolutely black or white.

Subjectivists often flip this argument back on murder-- which, is rightly considered as generally wrong-- by referencing murder in self-defense. This is often used to imply that situational morality outweighs any innate morality previously existing before this said moment. This specific circumstance proves to be a decent argument for subjectivity, but you'll find that it's rare for anyone to try to justify rape, forms of torture, or sex-trafficking.

Implying that there is no "natural" right or wrong is an inherently dangerous game to play. This leaves subjects of theft, domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, murder, torture, abduction, etc., up to an individual's desires and/or own personal reasoning.

I think that the subject of objective, subjective, or relative morality, ethics, and values prove to be a simple concept, when we allow them to be separated and examined, rather than grouped under words of unproven finality.