That is the entire point of subjectivity. It is not a matter of what is universally correct or incorrect. First of all, Just because you are in the majority doesn't mean you would want to wipe out the minority. Most people would agree that, based on the fact that society works better when everyone cooperates, and this is best achieved under sircumstances when suffering is minimized, that it would be more benificial to not cause suffering. IF it was the case that every single member of the majority thought it was okay to commit genocide, that would not make it objectively okay, because there is no objectively okay. It would mean that they see it as moral. The minority would see it as immoral. It is entirely subjective. You and I probably both agree that based on what we consider moral, we both think it is immoral.
People who think genocide is okay are, in my opinion, immoral. I do not think that there is any objective morality that makes it somehow factually immoral because I see morality as completely subjective. This matters none at all though, when we are speaking pragmatically. At a pragmatic level, all we are dealing with is the actions and consequences. If the majority of people regard stealing as immoral, you will likely be punished for stealing. This does not change if stealing is objectively immoral. This is just demonstrably what happens.
"Let's say morality is objective, if you steal from me, and the objective morality is stealing is wrong, no matter what I say you have committed a crime.If you steal from a group of people, no matter what they say, it is a crime..."
If the evidence of morality being objective is that everyone agrees, then morality is demonstrably NOT objective. There are cultures which regard some things as immoral where other cultures do not. Even people within the same culture disagree on morals. As I said, you can usually argue for whther something is productive or unproductive, benifical or a hinderance, etc. using reason and logic. This doesn't make morality objective.
Another thing I think you misundestand is that an individual does not look at a society and determine that their morals are the correct morals. A person can have different morals than their society does. When you talk about a societal morality, all you are getting from it is what that society thinks is moral. It may agree or disagree with your individual morals.
You don't judge whether morals are correct based on society. You can only determine what they deem moral and either agree or disagree. Saying that it is correct or not would be considering it objectively, which I don't do.
Let me take your retort in sections so can address the many points you have made... I will re-quote what I address and underline it in the original quote...
Firstly
Just because you are in the majority doesn't mean you would want to wipe out the minority.
This is a strawman, I asked you to address the problem given to you as a hypothetical and instead you say assume it will never happen therefore it does not need addressing, and when you do poke at the problem, you insinuate that I am confusing objective and subjective... Let me re-quote what I said. "
Here is a problem I would like you to address, lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?
The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."
So why do you say
IF it was the case that every single member of the majority thought it was okay to commit genocide, that would not make it objectively okay, because there is no objectively okay. It would mean that they see it as moral. The minority would see it as immoral. It is entirely subjective.
I never said it would be objective, I very clearly stated that it was subjective, and I defined my terms as well to try to prevent this confusion that you are so prone to get into.... I will redefine the terms as to hope I can prevent this confusion for the third time.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Can I please ask for future reference that you read my post twice before commenting? I think you might have skimmed over my post a little too quickly...
I do not think that there is any objective morality that makes it somehow factually immoral because I see morality as completely subjective. This matters none at all though, when we are speaking pragmatically. At a pragmatic level, all we are dealing with is the actions and consequences. If the majority of people regard stealing as immoral, you will likely be punished for stealing. This does not change if stealing is objectively immoral. This is just demonstrably what happens.
First off, you need to define pragmatic for me, because pragmatic in the English language means:
a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
I find it funny that you just said, that it does not matter if morality is based upon truth or feelings because you are pragmatic...
But to counter you, yes it does change... Let's take for instance witch craft... There are tribes in Africa that kill albino's because they say their skin contains magical powers to protect them from aids... In their subjective morality, they deem this as correct, they see no problems with it. Now what are the consequences of this subjective action?
Firstly, there is no information to say the person was wrong for killing the albino.
Secondly, if you are to say the person is wrong, it does not matter because that person says it is correct (appeal to self) and his society says it is correct (appeal to majority)
Now lets say there is objective morality, and the person kills the albino for magical powers to protect him from aids.
First an innocent person died.
Second the guilty party will and should be tried.
Thirdly it influences and attributes to further killings, so there has to be measures taken to prevent this.
As you can see in a pragmatic view, you are wrong.
If the evidence of morality being objective is that everyone agrees, then morality is demonstrably NOT objective.
Thank you for saying this, but I never said it would be, I very clearly defined objective as I will again.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Another thing I think you misundestand is that an individual does not look at a society and determine that their morals are the correct morals. A person can have different morals than their society does. When you talk about a societal morality, all you are getting from it is what that society thinks is moral. It may agree or disagree with your individual morals.
I never said a person has to agree with society, not once... I will again quote my question for you.
"
Here is a problem I would like you to address, lets say the majority of the earth is wanting to commit genocide on the non-majority. Is this wrong or right?
The first question is, are you in the majority or non-majority, if you are in the majority your subjective morality would say that it is completely correct. If you are in the minority you would say it is not correct. If you are judging based upon society you would also say that genocide is correct..."
Again, do you see anywhere, where I said that a person has to agree with society, or that a person always agrees with society?
You don't judge whether morals are correct based on society. You can only determine what they deem moral and either agree or disagree. Saying that it is correct or not would be considering it objectively, which I don't do.
So your answer as I take it is "NO" to my question?
[video=youtube;XBp8M8M4DMs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBp8M8M4DMs[/video]
. I do realize that everyone hearing the sermon is not 37, but it does get a little old. And besides, they make a big deal about it (preachers, that is) and I think that they are missing the point (or making a bigger deal out of a small issue. 
