I want to just post my thoughts on the previous topic.
(disclaimer: I didn't read anything since my last post)
Not entirely on the topic, because it addressees a different perspective of the "objective vs subjective" debate than in this thread, but I think that people instinctively view 'ought' statements as subjective and 'is' statements as objective. Funny thing is that for that perspective, I think there wouldn't be that distinction in this topic.
Usually, you can't conclude an 'ought' statement from only 'is' statements. You need somewhere an 'ought' premise for that. But that's where a topic like morality becomes, in my opinion, special.
We, as a species/beings, have things ingrained in us. Like wanting wellbeing and not wanting to suffer for an eternity for example.
Because of these things - 'ought' statements can be viewed as 'is' statements for as long as it's about these 'things'. Get what I'm saying?
So, for that perspective debate of "objective vs subjective" wrt morality, all you'd really need is to figure out if morality is one of those things that are ingrained in us when we're born, or it's a "depends on the person" type of deal.
Anyhow, sorry for that derailing, I just thought it interesting.
As I understand, this threads ongoing debate of "objective vs subjective morality" is about wether every person has the same sets of morality or everyone has their own? Well, to be frank, if all I need is to find 1 neonazi who's ok with killing jews or blacks, or 1 serial killer who sees nothing wrong with killing people - I'll take the leap and assume that there's 1 such person amongst the billion people in the world, and say that morality is subjective and the sets of morality depends on the person.