The topic of Meta-Ethics pertaining to whether moral values are objective or subjective, and whether or not as a society we should be able to intervene on another society if we do not believe what they are doing is morally ethical, is quite a large topic. How can we come up with a solid answer as to whether or not there are universal human values, and whether certain things should be considered right for everyone are very difficult questions to answer, we must be wary as to not insult different cultures, religions and societies. It has been concluded that an objective reality cannot exist without a subjective reality, in order to reach this conclusion, we must first consider that morality is wholly subjective, if this is so, we cannot call anything wrong, what we believe is right or wrong is simply an individual’s opinion on a subject. As an example, if someone killed several children from an elementary school, if morality is subjective, all anyone is able to say is that from an individual perspective it was wrong, from the perspective of the killer it may have been (in their opinion) the highest moral good. However, if reality is objective, then we can say that what the killer did was wrong. If one believes that killing is something that is truly wrong, then you believe in objective moral value, and in that case one must ask; how far do objective morals stretch, and where do they come from? If one believes that the wrongfulness of killing is simply a matter of perspective, then one should ask; why does society have the right to tell me what to do if morality is merely a matter of perspective? We cannot truthfully choose one way to look at the world, because the world is not black and white, there are many grey areas and many exceptions people would have to their beliefs, because of this we cannot have an objective reality...