If morality is subjective, then morality is still objective

A moral standard just means it's the standard you are applying to morality, as in the thing you will judge actions against in order to determine whether they are good.

What comparison are you making when the subject is the standard itself?

Then you don't know what it is or why it is important.

Why is it slick when I do it and yet that is all you've had to offer this entire conversation?

Except I don’t have to ask you a string of questions because I already know the answer

Then you don't know what it is or why it is important.

That’s because in the context of this discussion it isn’t important.

It is important, because that's exactly what you are appealing to. As far as I can tell, the only criticism you've offered of my position (while offering no alternative btw) is that there's no actual starting point, and the reason you claim this is because you just keep asking me "why?" over and over again until there's nothing left but "just because". That's literally the problem of infinite regress.

Except I don’t have to ask you a string of questions because I already know the answer

Values are subjective. Decisions made based on those values can be objectively determined to be moral or immoral.

Then why do we demand that others follow our standard regardless of what others standard is?

Because otherwise a society would probably descend into anarchy.

But that assumes that anarchy is an issue, what objective proof do you have of that?

If you value the security and stability of a civil society, then anarchy is an issue.

I’m sure a nihilist would agree there’s no point of valuing anything.

You are probably right. I'm glad that the majority of people are not nihilists.

Do you think the majority of people are atheists?

No. I've read anywhere from 4 to 17 percent of the U.S. consider themselves atheist.

Does the majority of the U.S. also believe morality to be objective?

Do you know what the majority believe?

No, what do you believe?

I'm glad that the majority of people are not nihilists.

Then what’s the point of valuing anything?

One point of valuing anything is to provide a basis and direction for a moral compass.

But we don’t need a compass if all roads leads to the same place.

Values are subjective. 

Not if we all share it, we all value happiness.

I'm sure that everyone does not value happiness for the same people and that there are even some that do not value it for themselves.

Not wanting to be happy is counterintuitive.

Do you think all democrats value Donald Trump's happiness? Do all republicans value Kamala Harris' happiness?

I was referring to happiness for yourself.

Do you think all democrats value Donald Trump's happiness? Do all republicans value Kamala Harris' happiness?

If we’re looking at happiness in the broader sense one can easily argue that politicians probably won’t be because of the dishonest lives they live, heaven is the epitome of eternal happiness.