dbO, in a blog post Comment on Subjective Morality gave a positive review of the following statement.
That’s the essential distinction. People almost always seem to think that if the basis of morality is subjective then its arbitrary and any set of values is as good as another.
However, there are two meanings of 'subjective'.
One states that mental states are an essential part of moral value - something I agree with. However, I still say that moral value is objective because mental states are a part of the real world - as much a part of the world as trees and flowers and chirping birds. Our statements about relationships between states of affairs and mental states are statements that are objectively true or objectively false - like any other scientific statement.
The other is that to change the moral value of X depends on the specific attitude that the agent has towards X. This latter interpretation makes the rightness or wrongness completely independent of X. The torturing of children for pleasure can be made right (permissible, good, even obligatory) merely by changing the agent's attitude towards the torturing of children for pleasure.
It is, on this account, a mere accident that it happens to be bad.