However, whilst this is objective morality in the sense of everyone seeing the consequences, it is also a wide reflective morality in the sense that each person has her own moral sense that she has to refine,yet this very subjectivism has two objective elements: it applies to all- universal and it requires equity and equality of treatment. 
     The Platinum Rule requires that I ,as a rational being to be consistent and not special plead, that I treat others nice as they ought to treat me. 
    Yes, as John Hospers notes, in "Human Conduct,." some persons lack that moral sense, and. I add, or just won't refine it to extend beyond the "tribe."
 

    Hospers favors Ayn Rand's egoism, but that fails. This one is universalistic.

  We agree to this covenant-covenant  morality for humanity- the presumption of morality- as the fulcrum whence we debate morality as scientists debate science. This overcomes moral relativism. We who urge human rights work with those nations who don't respect those rights, but through honest debate and -pressure come to respect it. Therefore, this is universal, applying to all societies so that no begged questions ensue.
    Religious morality stems from the simple subjectivism of men of yore- a wrong-heades one! Allah and Yahweh are moral monsters! Some people ahve a decent simple subjectivism.

    For more on wide refelctive subjectivism [my term], read John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion," whence I found that paradoxically both objective and subjective morality can intertwine.

    As with deontological ethics, it a teleological one has rules and makes for virtues.

    What is your moraiity?

    Anon, I'll treat how others find this consequentialist ethic wrong-headed.

      This igtheist finds no referents for God. Lamberth's teleonomic argument alone rules out divine intent to eviscerate any argument for His intent, and so wihout any referents thus as creator,designer, moracle monger and such, He cannot exist as Himself.

       The argument notes that as science finds no intent behind natural causes and explanations, then He lacks referents , and to posit Him as having intent contradicts instead of complementing science. Thus, theistic evolution is an oxymoronic obfuscation!

 He has such incoherent and contradictory attributes that again, he cannot exist!

  We strong atheists then have no obligation to traverse the Cosmos or have omniscience to declare that no God exists!