Objective Morality?

Morality is somewhat of a tired argument for the case of religion (and a religion's claims to a supreme being).

This argument is old and fallacious for many reasons, but mainly because it's just not true. The most contrived of fallacious arguments,within the morality spectrum, is that for objective morality. Morality is and always has been subjective and in a constant state of change. Although two people can find many points of agreement on moral issues (e.g. murder, capital punishment, abortion), those same two people will find many points of contention as well.

Asserting that there is some form of objective morality is fundamentally the same as asserting that all plants are the same - one might be able to make a case for it (e.g. similarities in reproduction, physiology, and anatomy), but there is little to no evidence in support the entire claim.

Also, asserting there is an objective morality is to say that there are some (or at least one) moral issues that have and will remain infinitely constant. I defy anyone to find a moral point that has and will remain definably constant.

Moreover, morality is virtually meaningless to a single individual. This is because morality boils down to accountability, and a lone individual is accountable for next to nothing (on moral grounds) in regards to themselves. But, integrate this same individual into a society, family, household, community, country, or world population, and there are means for accountability. It is necessary for this person to be accountable, in various ways, to others in society through norms, values, laws, folkways, etc (i.e. morality). More importantly, there is no real obligation to adhere to this morality; only a socially constructed obligation.

In short, morality is a necessary social construct, which speaks very little for the case for an inherent and/or objective morality.