In the philosophy discussions abotu subjective/objective origins for morals, the discussions revolve aroudn distinguishing “Ought’s” from “Is’s” - Man knows what he ‘aught’ to do, and these ‘oughts’ differ from culture to culture- but there is an ‘is’ that exists beneath the ‘oughts’ which shapes the oughts- or vice versa- can’t recall just now
I’m too tired tonight to even attempt this- but basically these ‘oughts’ existed right fro mthe start- otherwise, species woudl have wiped themselves out long long ago- subjectivism is simpyl far too self-centered for species survival (You’ll also note that cultures that ignore the ought, the universal code, do so for self-gratifications (after all that’s what sin is- self-centeredism)
just one more point- there are ‘personal moralities’ ‘social moralities’ but these are not ‘objective moralities’ which are universal- I’ll try to weigh in on this a bit tomorrow- I posted on it quite a bit in some philosophy forums awhile back- I’ll see if I can find them again- it was a huge thread- quite interesting- going back and forth, but in the end I think the case was made quite strong for objective morality, and if I remember right, it hinged on the fact that people born into societies which were less inhibitted, and more morally bankrupt, had to ‘learn’ to suppress their sense of ‘ought’, and this was universal throughout hte world accordign to testimonies