I would not hold that the person you are describing is following the correct moral code, nor would he think that I am.

Which is the definition of subjective, which was exactly the point Doug was trying to make.

To say that people believe different things is not the definition of subjective. I think the problem here is htat we are thinking about morals in a different way. The reason I say morals are absolute is because I think to follow or not follow the correct ones has consequences. In this sense there is an absolute set of morals that should be followed, even if people have vastly different ideas of what they are.

Think of it like this: two people are talking about jumping off a building. One guy says not to do it because he'll die, but the other guy truly believes he'll just float down and not be harmed. The fact that both people have their own ideas about what the consequences of an action are doesn't alter the truth of it. Unless they are in a level on Unreal Tournament, if they jump they're gong to die. This truth is objective, and while they may view it differently one or both of them must be incorrect.

So while I understand that everyone has their own ideas about what is or isn't good, I blieve that morals have been defined externally and it is our job to identify what they are. If this is true then morals are not subjective, because they are determined objectivly outside of us. If it is not true then morals are truly subjective, for there is no other standard other than that which we ourselves have errected.