As I understand you, you are inclined to think that there is nothing that is *really* morally good or bad, independently of our opinions. The first thing to note about such a subjectivist view is that many philosophers have defended the position that it's consistent with doing ethical theory, and with seeking to act rightly. One of the most prominent recent defenders of that view is Simon Blackburn -- take a look at his *Ruling Passions*. Blackburn takes himself to be following David Hume, the C18 Scottish philosopher -- look at his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, esp. app. 1. But perhaps you are inclined to believe that if these ideas are just a matter of our opinions, then the rational thing to do might be to give up on them. In which case, ask yourself the following question. Imagine you come across two people setting fire to a kitten, for fun. Doesn't it seem that you take the view that this is terribly wrong -- or something they have a very strong reason not to do -- *because* that is how things are? Why shouldn't goodness and badness be real properties of actions, independently of our opinions? To deny that possibility might be taken to be an example of an excessively narrow, or scientistic, conception of the world.