Do people not see any universality or objective fact in morality?
If there are no universals how do we draw common with all human beings?
Moral relativism in my sense of it is that all morality is dependent on individual preferences, and all of morality is circumstantial; relative to the situation. Perhaps all things are permissible given the situation and preference and benefit in my view of it.
Moral subjectivity is that morality is all based on personal feelings and there are no objective standards that evidence themselves as being truth.
To me moral relativism, and moral subjectivity are pitfalls whereas certain evils can seem necessary to the individual.
Moral objectivity and universality of morals is where all humans can hold common grounds and a fair sense of justice.
I believe that we can observe an "objective" set of moral edicts the moment we agree on what the term "moral" means. Nail down a definition, and you have defined the parameters within which one can guage "moral" vs. "immoral." So then, by virtue of the fact that we have a definition/meaning to go by, we have a standard by which to judge a given thing in that context.
So, if a "moral" action/item is defined as something that has benefit for the parties involved, is not purposefully harmful or injurious with malicious intent, etc. then within that framework, specific things are either moral, amoral, or immoral - objectively. For example, if that were the definition we went with, someone could not argue that murder was "moral" - since it defies the definition set forth.
However, it is all too easy to see that there is no universal, or "transcendent" morality. For one - what defines "morality?" Humans? Let's say there is a pack of wolves starving to death, and they gang up on a human and eat him/her. Have those wolves just committed an "immoral" act? Not according to the wolves, I am sure. They did what was in the best interest of their kind, and injury did not come to them with malicious intent from another wolf. Isn't that how we humans go about things? We don't consider it immoral to destroy the lives of other creatures if it is in our best interest. For instance if you are starving and need to eat - do you refuse to hunt on moral grounds? No. An ant colony has setup shop on your property and keeps invading your food stores. Do you not go about the business of eradicating them? We only consider an act "immoral" if we hurt one another with such intent. For example, killing another human and eating them if we were starving would still be considered immoral by most. Killing a human for stealing your food (like the ants did) would also be considered immoral.
From a universal perspective, no one creature, life-form or being gets to have ultimate authority over what is "moral." Therefore there can be no "objective" morality on that scale. Only when there are moral agents at play who have decided on the abstract meaning of "moral" can there be anything "objective" about it - and it is something that still "exists" only between those particular moral agents.