Morality and Subjectivity

...cannot be supported. No, it can't. It is an 'arbitrary' law created by man either through religious conviction or through legislation. Natural laws might be described and defined by man, but they cannot be altered by man. Moral laws get altered all the time. Look at South Dakota just 2 weeks ago. You might wish to view the hardships of humanity as punishment for disobediance to His laws, but that doesn't give them the status of natural law. You can 'ignore' gravity but you can't disobey it Faith.
There's a huge difference there.
You can disobey any moral or legislative law and risk punishment for it. The same does not hold for natural laws. Disobedience is impossible.

Sorry to say, but not so.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Math can work out purely by coincidence.
That's why we insist on consideration of ALL possible alternative hypotheses in science.Statistics clearly show that global warming is negatively correlated with the number of pirates on the high seas.Just an example.
Ever hear of spurious correlations?
Correlation does not equal causality?Even math can be subverted for the purpose of evil.
None of us are really safe from Satan's work.

No. It means we aren't using the right equation.

Math is just one of many tools we use in science.
It is an extremely valuable tool, but a tool nonetheless.
Like any other tool it can be used for good or evil purposes.Math can very easily be 'wrong' in a real sense while being 'right' in math sense when models are based on spurious assumptions. All mathematical models of nature hinge on an extensive series of basic assumptions in order to operate.Some of these assumptions might actually be wrong in certain cases, but as long as the models accurately predict outcomes, we have no reason to questiton them.
It is very important to realize that 'good' math can sometimes give us the right answers for the wrong reasons.
Herein lies the importance of rigorous empirical observation - to detect all the various erroneous assumptions that we are inevitably forced to make in the process of conceiving and advancing science.Spurious correlations are an example of how statistically significant results can potentially be used to draw erroneous conclusions using bona fide mathematics.I sincerely hope this clarifies. EZ

This might seem superficially subjective, but objectively none of us wants to be killed in our sleep. So we are obligated to support some level of law enforcement no matter how loath we are to trust the acutal cops enforcing it. I see the devlopment of scientific insight in much the same way.
We produce subjective mental ”constructs’, or ”models of how things might work’ then use objective observation and a detached analysis of data to refine these constructs.
Science advances as a combination of both these processes - why shouldn’t the evolution of moral standards.Morality operates on assumptions about what is right and wrong in human terms,
and this is necessarily determined on the basis of human ”values’ that you correctly note have both subjective and objective components.
Science operates on assumptions about what might be true and what must be false. That is true by definition because they are constructs. They were created through a subjective process of human conception.
Some one had to conceive of the equation and then construct it.
But for every insightful and useful equation, thousands of useless ones can be written.
We should never under estimate the value of subjective insights in science and mathematics.
And it is only logical that subjective viewpoints and insights are essential to the evolution of human moralities. I think most moral laws are based on practical concerns shared by a large number of people. For example, I tried to think of a law based solely on morality, with no practical uses, and found it difficult. Take for example laws against adultery. Seem pretty morally founded on the surface, but obviously have practical advantages in reducing conflicts between jealous spouses.