Morality is mostly subjective. That does not mean there cannot be philosophical investigation that can reveal some views are better or even somewhat more objective then others. Depends on how you define morality, I assume.
The fact that people in different communities hold different views can simply mean some are wrong. All moral philosophy needs to have axioms, let’s call them the fundamental principles, the paradigm. These cannot be debated really. But that does not mean some are not better than others.
Creating communities that accept our own set of subjective morality works until one community massacres the other. For fun and profit. Except the few which it enslaves one would assume.
Me, I split morality in things that do or do not violate the basic liberty of others. Whether it is OK to have sex before marriage or not is a purely subjective issue. Is it OK to have sex before marriage by raping someone no longer is subjective. Because it leaves your personal subjective sphere and enters another ones.
"That does not mean there cannot be philosophical investigation that can reveal some views are better or even somewhat more objective then others."
What is "better" morality is the one that survives—even if it means killing. Look around you the state of the world. Obviously murder is still justifiable for fighting over imaginary borders. it survives instead of "peace" not because it is superior but bcause it eliminates the opposite view.
"The fact that people in different communities hold different views can simply mean some are wrong. "
What is better or worse, what is wrong or right is subjective depending on a given situation.
"Me, I split morality in things that do or do not violate the basic liberty of others."
Do you buy cheap chinese t-shirts from potential chinese labour-slave camps. probably you do without knowing it. Most of conflict around us is created on this. small events not in our perception, creating massive black swans. this is why most of the world is pissed with Americans.
"Is it OK to have sex before marriage by raping someone no longer is subjective."
It might be if you are the last healthy male and you have to procreate the species. Again time-space is important and this is why morality cannot be objective.
The state of the world does not say much. The fact that murder takes place does not mean it is justifiable. It may also simply mean people are immoral. Any one you ask: is it OK if someone just comes and murders you, they will say no. It seems to me that being murdered is considered universally wrong (99.99%). If these people think it is OK for them to murder others it just shows inconsistent thinking. Not that murder is acceptable.
I don't think black swan means what you think it means.
"The fact that murder takes place does not mean it is justifiable."
It actually means that. it means that people, the vast majority accept it as part of our moral reality.
"ny one you ask: is it OK if someone just comes and murders you, they will say no."
True but that doesn't mean anything other than we share the same moral, not the same morality. Read my article again. I actually have a picture illustrating this point.
" If these people think it is OK for them to murder others it just shows inconsistent thinking."
not really since there are different cases where murder is ok. e.g at war or dfending onself. again. context is vital.
"I don't think black swan means what you think it means."
oh yes it is. small occurances of small non important moral event such as slave-camps in india and china or africa create political conflict, overthrow goverments and then we get the refugees hating the western citizens that keep their employers enslaving them.
don't worry i read the book. it applies to economics as much as it applies to morality.
"we share the same moral, not the same morality"
I think we partly share the same "ethics" ("don't kill other peaceful people"-ish), but likely not the core moral ideals that we have chosen and that we can call "morality".