Morality: Objective vs. Subjective
Ethics and morality may seem universal concepts; those, which are fixed for all nations and peoples. However, moral relativism suggests that morality and ethics are dynamic, and change in accordance with culture or social standards. In an attempt to check whether morality is subjective or objective, I have discovered several theories and concepts, however subjectivists’ arguments and my personal experience and worldview prove that morality is subjective. 
The two main approaches to morality and its roots, - subjective and objective, - differ in that how the subject and the object relate to each other and the environment. Objectivists argue that what is considered morally wrong, is wrong regardless or place, setting, time, or any other factor. They claim that morality cannot change with either location, or culture. For example, the following statement, “It is immoral to deprive children of their pocket money,” an objectivist would interpret like, “deprivation is immoral,” thus stressing and considering the object of concern. Subjectivists, however, would interpret the same statement as, “he/she thinks that …” thus concentrating on the subject. This is the major feature, which differentiates subjectivists from objectivists. 
Moral and ethical principles are unwritten, and frequently they are in the “gray” area between legal and illegal. To make a decision a person has to exercise his or her morality, and rely on him/herself, without turning to some book or guideline. There surely exist various documents to turn to, such as ethical codes etc, but the final decision the person takes depends expressly on the morality of that very person. Thus, morality depends on the subject.
If objectivists think that morality is universal and cannot be changed or altered, a reasonable question arises; who determines what is right and what is wrong for this universal morality? There is a famous saying, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do,” which perfectly applies to argument against objectivism. For example, in a tribal community cannibalism is considered an honor for the late. Now, for a Western-mentality person, eating a human sounds horrible for obvious reasons. However, for a savage from the tribe, drinking alcoholic beverages is something immoral and intolerable. Now, the question is, whose morality is more “moral?” If the Westerners’, then what makes them more humane? If the tribe’s, why? The answer is that within the circle of that tribe, “their” moral principles determine what is right or wrong. And back home, it is completely different. Within this tribe, morality is a certain unique set of beliefs, principles, and judgements that had been forming for ages, and according to which they decide what is right or wrong. If this set of beliefs is different with us, neither the tribe nor we are guilty, bad, or good. We simply are different, so beliefs, and morality are. Thus, morality is not universal, and it does change from culture to culture, from nation to nation.
Ultimately, there are several views on the roots and nature of morality. While some theorist claim it to be absolute and universal, others claim it is relative to the subject. Although moral objectivism is an attractive standpoint, with fraudulently genuine facts and arguments, morality is surely subjective. Moral principles exist within us – the subjects, - who are the bearers of morality and ethics, and thus both morality and ethics depend on us, - the subjects.