To begin with a correction.
My logic regarding morality in either state of S or O pertains to the bottom line in human nature, i.e., the ancient understanding that whatever your culture what I don't like done to me you also wouldn't like done to you. At that level I find morality as neutral and to that extent objective. How it responds to such infringements is left to the culture or society itself and therefore subjective.
Having said that, I admit that my original statement
"Subjective in how it responds, objective in what it responds to", is far too simplistic. It's not wholly wrong but morality through the ages is far too complicated to allow it such a simplified conclusion.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑October 15th, 2018, 1:56 am
What I meant by it was: do moral assertions express falsifiable factual claims - which means they're objective - or unfalsifiable value-judgements - which means they're subjective.
My conclusion is they must be subjective - for the reasons we've been debating in this thread.
I'm leaning more to the subjective myself but for different reasons. Morality manifests itself mostly as a playground of what connotes as moral or immoral relative to the age. In that regard I would completely refute the inclusion of "falsifiable" as having any reference to morality or moral matters. Morality is grounded within the structures of human psychology where any claim of falsifiable is not authorized as a true expounder of what is moral or not.