Right, so you back up your subjective statement with, “Reasons,” but guess what, the reasons themselves are also subjective. I think killing is morally wrong because I don’t think one human being has the right to take another human being’s life away. That’s my opinion, it’s a reason, but it’s also an opinion. It’s not objectively true or false, my reasons are just as subjective as my moral assertion was in the first place.
I think it is morally wrong to kill someone because, pursuant to the Golden Rule, I would certainly not want to be killed and it wouldn’t be right to do something to someone that I would not want done to myself. Again, “The Golden Rule,” is not objectively true or false. It’s a choice. Some people abide by it, some people don’t, most people situationally abide by it.
I do not think it is morally right to kill someone because it will have a negative emotional impact on that person’s family. Subjective. For other people, the emotional impact on the person’s family may well be a non-consideration.
The reasons are no less subjective than the blanket moral statement.
I would say that is definitionally true, almost by necessity. The question is what decision, with countless possible decisions available in some situations, is the most rational? How do we weigh reasons in favor of something versus reasons against something? Quantitatively? Qualitatively (which is to say different reasons have more or less strength than other reasons)? Both? These are all subjective considerations. They vary from person to person.
A tree is one thing. An individual tree does not vary, it changes, but it does not vary.
Yes, we examine reasons, that’s fine. The examination and comparison of our reasons does not give the reasons objectivity. I think for something to be morally objectively true you would need the agreement of every single individual moral agent in the Universe, at a minimum.