That’s a subjective standard.
This debate seems hampered by a lack of clarity on what “objective” and “subjective” moralities are. Coyne gave a sensible definition of “objective” morality as being the stance that something can be discerned to be “morally wrong” through reasoning about facts about the world, rather than by reference to human opinion.
If morality were objective, it would have to be conceivable that the statement “George’s actions were wrong and he deserves to be punished” would be true even if every human in the world were of the opinion, “George’s actions seem fine to me, perhaps even laudable”.
Thus, if morality were an absolute set by a god, something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.
Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?
If morality were objective then morality could be explained independently of human opinion. That morality doesn’t exist. Instead, we have a subjective morality based on human nature.
That is a subjective opinion based on the wants and needs of humans.
Weasel words. Just because our subjective opinions on morality exist in an objective reality does not suddenly make those subjective opinions into objective ones.
Yes, it’s the standard we all use today.
Then where is the objective standard that exists independently of humans?