I’ll respond after you correct your mistake. I do take into account animal suffering.
I’d have to agree with Arac here. Much like some see Homosexuality as immoral while others don’t. Some see freedom to criticize their leadership’s decisions as immoral, again, others don’t.
There is nothing more subjective than morals.
Which is why we have idiots thinking they are in the moral right when they go on killing sprees. (worldwide, usually with armies but sometimes small groups or just individuals)
No, Khalbrae. Homosexuality just isn’t immoral. There is no grey area.
I did address this confusion, already; you mention animal suffering after specifically limiting your moral focus to human beings. I addressed the former eventuality just in case. In the latter, adding animals, despite removing a mostly indefensible elitism, adds a very slippery slope of what life should in fact be considered; degree of demonstrated self-awareness, ability to feel pain, possessing a brain, being multi-celled? Where is the line drawn? Also, what limitations exist on the harm/benefit scale? Does harm/benefit only matter to humans? Animal testing inarguably has greatly helped humanity, but arguably hasn’t helped a lot of animals very much, especially in the wider scheme of the world. Should they be forced to endure harm for the sake of another species? This doesn’t sound so simple.
Secondly, the issue of animals was only a small criticism against that idea of objective morality. I find it telling that you chose to ignore all the other, more pertinent comments than a specific example of how someone might disagree with the theoretically objective morality you expressed. In another criticism, dealing only with humans, it could very easily justify genocides and eugenics. Including animals, removing more of our populations is even more solidly morally grounded.
EDIT: The problem, GAP, with that, is that I could find someone in very little time who would say “Homosexuality is just immoral. There is no grey area.”
I never said it was, it is only immoral to people who believe it is.
Arac: Perhaps I should have been clearer, then. I’m fairly utilitarian in my morality, though not extremely so. Torturing an animal is clearly just as wrong as torturing a human being. In fact, I would say that torturing an animal is just about as evil as torturing a baby. One could justify torture by saying that it was for “the greater good.”
Anybody that believes cats could be enslaved is a fool, by the way. It’s not a fair analogy. You feed your cat, shelter it, et cetera, and you’ll be lucky if you get affection in return. Pets do not perform manual labor in exchange for food and shelter, oftentimes they do nothing. They’re more like dependents than anything. Now pet shows I consider immoral, although a mild immorality. As for animal testing, more humans will be helped than animals harmed. The benefits outweigh the harm.
As for homosexuality, nobody has ever given me a rational argument for why homosexuality should be considered immoral. The only one I could think of is a stretch, and isn’t really applicable now: “It is our duty to propagate our species. Since homosexuality is non-survival behavior, it is immoral.” Considering there are too many damned humans around, I can’t really consider that argument. If somebody can give me a rational argument for why homosexuality is immoral, I will consider it. I’ll be unlikely to change my mind, but you’ll get a gold star. 
But perhaps I’m coming off as more pompous that I’m meaning to be. Am I the authoritative source on everything right and wrong? No. But morality is NOT subjective. Just because we do not know whether or not something is moral, does not mean there is not an answer or that it is up to intepretation or that it is wrong in one culture but not another. And it is easy to determine the morality of acts that simply do not harm anybody: there is nothing immoral about them.
So, there are objective standards by which to measure moral statements, but they can never be observed or justified by any method of science. The best standards by which we can measure the objective truth of a moral statement is by some vague “harms others” proposition, even though the situation and individuals involved varies wildly.
Is throwing a fat man off a barely sinking ship to save the rest of the survivors moral? What if the fat man was Hitler? What if one of the ship’s passengers was going to bring about world peace? Asking these questions to different people will yield different answers, but apparently only one answer is right!
Regardless of all this, morals can be described as somehow “objective”?
But that’s an absurd situation. There would likely be other things that you could unload on a sinking ship than people.
No, sorry; fat boy and passengers are all that’s left 
Here’s an easier-to-swallow one then: you and your friends go spelunking when a cave-in occurs, and fat boy is trapped between rocks, blocking the only air hole into your section. You can blow him out with dynamite that you carried for the express purpose of in case a cave-in happened, thus saving the rest of your group, or you can all suffocate, and he’ll eventually die of starvation. No, you can’t just pull him out. He’s stuck pretty tight.
Edit: to help you decide, he is one of:
a) a convicted murderer and part of the KKK and for some reason you invited him on this trip
b) a cancer researcher with four Nature publications already 
c) some hobo who hasn’t had a job in 30 years; why do you invite these people
combined with, the rest of your group being:
a) ex-convicts who are not sorry for what they did (who do you hang out with >:O)
b) ordinary people
c) all cancer researchers with four Nature publications each
Remember, only one right answer for each!
Well then, sorry fat boy. I’m sure he’d understand, but it would be a futile gesture to keep him alive, only to have him die from a horrible protracted death. That was an easy one, with a clear solution.
What if there’s a very good chance that someone will eventually come along and see his plight, as you know of other spelunking groups in the area, in about 4 hours, when you’ve all died of suffocation?
A good chance versus a sure chance. I’d still blow him up. I have a feeling if I keep answering, you’ll be giving me an infinite amount of variables.
Also, I just saw your bizarre options in the edit: uhh… none of that really has any relevence, as how would I know what that fat person was?
You’re on his spelunking trip; you ought to know. And if it was a sure chance that he’d be saved, and only you were trapped, would you say your life was worth more than his?
Basically, I’m challenging your seeming belief that there are clear-cut solutions for deciding whether one life/lives is worth more than another based on:
i) number
ii) chances of survival
iii) accomplishments
Fine.
aa. Blow him up.
ab. Blow him up.
ac. Blow him up.
ba. Leave him.
bb. Leave him.
bc. Blow him up.
ca. Leave him.
cb. Blow him up.
cc. Blow him up.
Right, and because my own answers differ from yours, there’s obviously no rigorous, objective method of going about arriving at a conclusion, except by briefly considering your own subjective values and determining whether the life was worth saving. It seems that Arac had a point after all:
No. Morality is definitely objective. I might not be right about my answers, but there is a definite objective morality.
Morality can not be objective because it is developed by our own personal perceptions of the world and how it works. Saying we completely understand what is right and wrong has religious, spiritual and cultural foundations and only developed because of our unique ability to think about abstract concepts. There’s nothing wrong with saying something is right and wrong, because that’s how everyone is brought up. It is what is ingrained into us. But the very idea that we can comprehend the absolute “good” and “bad” is a belief in itself. Not an absolute.
All morality seems to be is the type of jacket your conscience likes to wear, which is generally predetermined by the environment you were raised in and what you observed in your life up till the present. Some people look past this and do things considered outside of the box, unconventional, or “immoral”, and others like to make rigid guidelines and barriers in their world. It’s all just perception, and differing morals are the same basic ideas being expressed in different manners to varying degrees.
Maybe some of this makes sense?
Relativism of any kind makes me gag, but moral relativism, which most people in this age seem to ascribe to, is especially bankrupt. If morality is subjective, it loses its meaning. Granted, morality is highly situational (as I believe Cless was pointing out), but that doesn’t mean that it’s subjective.
Let me put it this way: Jo is a rapist. He comes from a family of people who told him that rape was perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged. Both female and male figures have told Jo that rape is just dandy. Since Jo was raised in an environment that encourages rape, does that make rape any less wrong for Jo? Not at all. Rape is wrong no matter what background you come from; it is not a matter of perception. Rape is wrong. Period.
Similarly, someone can be raised to believe that any sex between two consenting adults that is not missionary heterosexual sex is wrong. They’re also wrong. Not as horribly wrong as the family of rapists are, but certainly wrong. Consenting sex between consentual adults is never wrong, unless a third party is hurt by it, in which case it would depend on the circumstance. This even includes acts that I, myself, would find disgusting. Just because I find something (such as coprophilia) abhorrent, doesn’t mean that it’s immoral.
How do you know that? How can you say with absolute certainty what is and isn’t objectively moral?
Can you give me a good argument why I’m wrong? Until then, I’m going to stand by my assertion.