A strong system of subjective values and beliefs can lead to conflict with people who have a strong system of other subjective values and beliefs.
Striving for objectivity is better in that it seeks to create a reality that people live with because it's true, not because we want to live with it.
On the other hand, I don't believe anything (or at least most things) have a definitive answer, therefore, I opt for a third option. Being an observer (nihilism). Don't accept anything as truth, objectively or subjectively. Believe nothing, judge nothing, Things just 'are'. In this option none of the options (objectivity, subjectivity and nihilism) is the right one.
With that attitude you achieve very little. Value judgments must be made when there is a need. Judgments are always made at the exclusion of certain desires and possibilities, but also can be made based upon varying amounts of supporting knowledge (hopefully gathered objectively). Judgments are largely subjective functions that can either be in accordance with a broader reality/world view or independent of it. You can say judge nothing, but all you are doing is forestalling making choices, which is fool hearty. The best way is to use whatever information you have to form a conclusion/judgment, but leave that judgment open to change pending more information that supports or knocks down the judgment (as determined by the orientation you chose that forms the judgment) .
For instance, I can say that manmade global warming is not happening, and have a host of supporting information and arguments for such a judgment. You may say that it is real, and also have a host of supporting info. Only one reality exists, so either one of us is right, or neither of us is right (a possible different picture that avoid the dichotomous argument). We can throw the supporting info we have for our judgments back and forth, attempting to usurp eachother's supporting facts. However, we would likely disagree on the existence of the most basic supporting facts. Thus, it becomes a situation where our judgments are formed upon completely different worldviews that are irreconcilable. We would have two very different views of reality.
So, you see the problems that come with "objective truth" and making judgments. "Objective truths" aren't always the same, mostly because of differences in perception. However, choices need to be made based upon whatever information we have, be it true to reality or not. I, personally, would say that action should NOT be taken for global warming because clearly there is not enough supporting info to make anything more than an infatile judgment that comes from a place of absolute ignorance of what the real nature of the thing we are judging is. However, as the real world would have it, our own interactions have pushed us to the point of having to make decisions about the issue prematurely, on both sides of the argument.
In essence, it is ideal to reserve judgment until the last possible moments when as much info as possible is gathered, but in the real world, you seldom get that luxury. You'd have to admit that just in your own personal life as we make judgments everyday based upon limited info. That is simply what life demands of us.