Noticed you modded up my comment on objective ethics. To elaborate further beyond the domain of narrative to real world example.. consider the case of theft and murder. In every civilization in human history theft and murder is considered wrong. Logically speaking a civilization would not exist for long if everyone stole and murdered each other. It makes perfect sense that any civilization would outlaw this sort of behavior… thus they are objective morals even if some chose to ignore them.
The problem is that as you start getting into more complicated situations the definitions themselves become more complicated. So x might claim y is murdering someone else in a war rather than it be an act self-defense. Some end up taking the tact this “proves’ morals are subjective.. which is nonsense. We have already established empirically at least at a high level that theft and murder is wrong. It’s the complexity that makes it hard to unravel the objective position in more complicated situations not that there isn’t an objective view. We eventually figured out burning woman for witchcraft was unethical because we eventually did a better judge of resolving the complexity of the arguments.
I like to imagine myself as a relatively smart fellow with a moral compass. I have never met a single person I completely agree with. Ergo I am immune from mistakes and everyone else must adopt everything I say!
Of course I make mistakes like everyone else. but from a conscious perspective it’s hard to see my mistakes just like others have a hard time seeing their own mistakes. Our primate brains are filtering information in inefficient ways sometimes resulting in poor assessments including mistakes in moral judgement.