I assert that, for many (though possibly not all) moral questions, that there is a fact of the matter as to whether a thing is good or bad or neither.

So, funny phrasing and thought provoking way of putting it. After some reflection, I think I'd press you to define right and wrong before answering if you hit me up with that.

Even moral issues don't have objective right and wrong. The idea that there are base moral facts is ridiculous, and without fully understanding each others priors arguments about ethics are rarely productive.

> actions that decrease a creatures well-being can be thought of as objectively wrong

Which results in the "rightness" and "wrongness" of those actions being open to debate, and therefore subjective.

> I base my morality on the well-being of conscious creatures.

Same as my moral compass. But I don't pretend that my definition of "well-being" is objectively correct and universal.

What exactly "ethically right" means is subjective.

> you're dismissing a whole branch of philosophy

Yes, and it's not the only branch I dismiss :-)

> but there are other approaches to understanding morality

For example? My problem with ethical systems is that they're built on a subjective feelings of rightness and wrongness.

You make a fact-like statement for what is actually one of the most debated arguments in philosophical history. I disagree, morality is subjective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

You've committed the same error. One ramification of the is-ought divide is that ultimately, ethical norms are assertions divorced from empirical basis. Saying that 'murder is wrong' is epistemologically very similar whether it is based on some religious text or something like "what would society be like if we allowed people to murder each other?". It is simply expressing a preference for one empirical state over another empirical state, and absent some transcendental determinant, no final conclusion can decisively be reached.

I think values (in this context) are truths! It's an idea that seems strange at first, and I think that if you asked people on the street, they would probably say indeed that ought-statements aren't objectively true, just matters of opinion or something like that. But I think this is wrong.

But to be sure, what I've been saying is that the claim that "We ought to reproduce as our primary purpose" is true is incorrect. If you don't think ought a statements are truths, then there's actually no disagreement here, you don't think it's true either.

But I think ought-statements can be true. "Spinach is yucky" is a kind of statement that isn't a truth and isn't really true or false---it's just a matter of opinion. But I think that this is fundamentally different from, for example, "The earth revolves around the sun". The latter case is independent of what people believe or what kind of feelings they have about the roundness of the earth---not so for the first case. Now consider " We ought not hold slaves." Is this statement more like "Spinach is yucky" or "The earth revolves around the sun"? There was a time where most people would have disagreed with "We ought not hold slaves". They would have even said it's traditional, it's economically necessary, etc. But all that has no bearing on this statement. Slavery is wrong and has always been wrong - even when it was traditional, when most people held slaves, etc. Because morals aren't just claims about what's traditional or conducive to reproduction. Just like "the earth revolves around the sun", tradition and evolution and psychology don't affect the truth of this statement---it is simply true.

Exactly. There is no universal right or wrong, it's all relative based on hierarchical system of values in every society.

If everybody simply stuck to treating others how they would want to be treated, we'd live in a much better world already, even if it wasn't "perfect", and even if there were disagreements, and it all still always subject to constant learning and reflection.

Our main problems don't stem from out confusion about what we think is right (and by "we" I mean each of us as the individuals that actually exist, not as a collective abstraction), but from wanting what we think is right for ourselves, while having double standards for others, and rationalizations for those.

In my studies of philosophy I am yet to find any system of ethics that provides an objective and universal definition of right and wrong - if you find one, please let me know.

Until then, we are all dealing with subjective opinions - it's just that some opinions are more popular than others. In democracy the most popular opinion wins, but this does not imply that an opinion is objectively "right" (as we know from history).

Hence, I find this recent trend where people classify other people's beliefs as "objectively wrong" - with no consideration for the subjectivity of their own beliefs - to be deeply troubling. Such behaviour is a departure from reason; only dogma remains.