Instigator / Pro
0
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#4960

Does objective Morality Exist?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1317
rating
266
debates
40.98%
won
Description

Affirmative Position: Argue that objective morality does exist, and there are universal moral principles that are independent of individual beliefs, cultures, or opinions. Provide evidence and examples to support the existence of objective moral truths.

Negative Position: Argue that objective morality does not exist, and moral principles are subjective, varying based on cultural, societal, and individual perspectives. Present arguments and examples to support the idea that morality is relative.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Id like to thank Korea for this debate, I will now move into my arguements.
Argument 1:
The 1st argument is that moral subjectivism cant account for genuine moral disagreements.
Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement
Premise 2: There is genuine moral disagreement
premise 3: Therefore moral subjectivism is not true

Premise 2 & 3 are pretty self explanatory so ill cover premise 1 in more depth,if moral values were really just someone's preferences (which is what moral subjectivism suggests), so look at it like this. If joe says "abortion is wrong" & molly says "Abortion is right", if we translate these opinons it would be equivalent to joe saying "I disapprove of abortion" & molly would be saying "I approve of abortion", but if both are just saying approve/disapprove then is there a disagreement? The answer is no since moral debate, presumes moral disagreement, therefore genuine moral disagreements cant exist in a moral subjectivism world view

Argument 2:
The 2nd argument is that moral subjectivism would render all of our moral judgements infallible 
Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then all of our moral judgements would be infallible
premise 2: Our moral judgements are not infallible
premise 3: Therefore moral subjectivism is not true

Either premise 1 or 2 could be denied here so instead of attacking strawmen ill wait for korea to address which premise(s) he disagrees with. 

Argument 3:
This argument says moral subjectivism is incoherent
Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be true contradictions
premise 2: True contradictions are not possible
premise 3: Therefore moral subjectivism is not true

Ill elaborate on premise 1, suppose frank says "Its always wrong to eat meat" but suppose he also holds another view that could make eating meat acceptable like, "I also prefer not to starve to death" putting these 2 statements together we arrive to the conclusion that frank says "I never approve of eating meat and I sometimes approve of eating meat" This is obviously contradictory yet could be true in moral subjectivism
Con
#2
If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be no genuine moral disagreement
My opponent didnt explain what he means by genuine moral disagreement.

Obviously, two people can have different opinions and their opinions would still be subjective.

Objective, by definition, means independent of opinion and emotions. It needs to exist externally, outside of the brain and independent of it, so to say.

We still havent found morality existing anywhere outside of the brain, independent of the brain.

Saying that "if two people disagree, their opinion is objective" is by itself illogical statement that doesnt even care to explain how two opposite opinions can both be objective at the same time and exist independent of themselves.

Premise 2 & 3 are pretty self explanatory so ill cover premise 1 in more depth,if moral values were really just someone's preferences (which is what moral subjectivism suggests), so look at it like this. If joe says "abortion is wrong" & molly says "Abortion is right", if we translate these opinons it would be equivalent to joe saying "I disapprove of abortion" & molly would be saying "I approve of abortion", but if both are just saying approve/disapprove then is there a disagreement? The answer is no since moral debate, presumes moral disagreement, therefore genuine moral disagreements cant exist in a moral subjectivism world view
This is an appeal to need logical fallacy. First, my opponent claims that if two people have opposite opinions, they are not in disagreement.  That is obviously false.
Then he claims that objective morality exists because he apparently needs it to be able to disagree with people. I may need one million dollars in my pocket to be happy, but the existence of such need does not bring the cash into existence.

There is genuine moral disagreement
Since my opponent didnt explan what is "genuine moral disagreement", this premise is an assumption, therefore, making the argument itself an assumption that doesnt need refuting.

Also, since my opponent conceded that there is moral disagreement, it follows that morality is indeed subjective and depends upon an opinion. Different opinions, different morality. Since moral debates depend upon arbitrary moral standard, and arbitrary moral standard depends upon opinion and brain, it follows that the core of morality is subjective.

The 2nd argument is that moral subjectivism would render all of our moral judgements infallible 
Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then all of our moral judgements would be infallible
This is not even close to truth, because people can change minds over time, or make unintended mistakes.
My opponent needs to say what he means by infallible. If he means incapable of making mistakes, thats obviously not true. People can make mistakes by not having enough knowledge when making decisions. If he means incapable of being wrong, that too would be false as people can change minds and standards over time.

If he means incapable of being objectively wrong, he would need to first prove that moral judgments can be objectively wrong. However, that would still not prove objective morality. Saying that moral judgment can be objectively wrong is not proof of objective moral judgment. Likewise, saying that opinion can be objectively wrong is not proof of objective opinion existing.
Objective, to repeat again, means independent of an opinion.
Opinion cannot be independent of opinion, so moral judgment, being opinion, cannot be independent of an opinion at the same time.
Moral judgment is always based on arbitrary moral standard that is a result of an opinion, not independent of it. How can something be completely produced by brain and opinion at the same time be independent of it? It cannot.

This argument says moral subjectivism is incoherent
Premise 1: If moral subjectivism were true, then there would be true contradictions
No, there would not be true contradictions.
I can have one opinion. You can have opposite opinion. That is not any kind of "true contradiction". Its just two opposite things existing at the same time, but at a different place.
The opposite of owning a car is not owning a car, yet both happen at the same time, just with different places and different people.

premise 2: True contradictions are not possible
premise 3: Therefore moral subjectivism is not true
Ill elaborate on premise 1, suppose frank says "Its always wrong to eat meat" but suppose he also holds another view that could make eating meat acceptable like, "I also prefer not to starve to death" putting these 2 statements together we arrive to the conclusion that frank says "I never approve of eating meat and I sometimes approve of eating meat" This is obviously contradictory yet could be true in moral subjectivism
One person can have two opposite opinions, and both opinions can exist at the same time, since they would be in different parts of brain.
The person would be contradicting himself, but it would not be any kind of true contradiction. It happens to people with multiple personalities. Consider it like two or more persons living in one brain.

Thanks for the fun first round.
Round 2
Pro
#3
My opponent didnt explain what he means by genuine moral disagreement.
Well apologies, by genuine moral disagreements, I mean people having differing views on ethical choices from each other, for example as I provided 2 people disagreeing on abortion
Obviously, two people can have different opinions and their opinions would still be subjective.
Objective, by definition, means independent of opinion and emotions. It needs to exist externally, outside of the brain and independent of it, so to say.
We still havent found morality existing anywhere outside of the brain, independent of the brain.
Well I believe your begging the question by assuming morality is a opinion, since that would be concluded from it being subjective, which is what this debate is about
Saying that "if two people disagree, their opinion is objective" is by itself illogical statement that doesnt even care to explain how two opposite opinions can both be objective at the same time and exist independent of themselves.
Well I never assumed they were objective in my example, I showed how there cant be genuine moral disagreement, although I didn't define moral disagreement so I hope you can understand the example now.

This is an appeal to need logical fallacy. First, my opponent claims that if two people have opposite opinions, they are not in disagreement.  That is obviously false. Then he claims that objective morality exists because he apparently needs it to be able to disagree with people. I may need one million dollars in my pocket to be happy, but the existence of such need does not bring the cash into existence.
Ive searched the web and I cant find a "Appeal to need" fallacy so id ask that you provide a source on it.
as for your point you said I claim that if two have opposite opinions they are not in disagreement, you then proceeded to say that the claim "two people have opposite opinions they are not in disagreement" is false, which is why you shouldn't believe in subjective morality as that's what subjective morality points to. You then try to compare my example of "I need objective morality to have genuine moral disagreement" to "having a million dollars makes me happy, but that doesnt bring cash into existence" This is a disanalogy 
Definition of disanalogy:
A lack or failure of analogy.
Definition of analogy:
A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
So to prove this is a disanalogy id have to prove it isnt parallel, lets look at the 2 views
"I need one million dollars in my pocket to be happy, the need of happiness brings cash into existence"
and my view:
"Genuine moral disagreement exist, subjective morality cant account for this, therefore subjective morality is false"
I don't see how this is parallel at all and I implore the judges to see how vacuous this analogy is.
Since my opponent didnt explan what is "genuine moral disagreement", this premise is an assumption, therefore, making the argument itself an assumption that doesnt need refuting.
Again my apologies, would you hold the same opinion now that ive defined it?
Also, since my opponent conceded that there is moral disagreement, it follows that morality is indeed subjective and depends upon an opinion. Different opinions, different morality. Since moral debates depend upon arbitrary moral standard, and arbitrary moral standard depends upon opinion and brain, it follows that the core of morality is subjective.
Now this is a non-sequitur, the conclusion doesn't follow. The premises are
1) People disagree on morals
2) Therefore objective morality doesnt exist.

Now premise 1 is inherently true, as I stated people have genuine moral disagreements, take for example the Nazi culture vs the ally culture, the Nazi culture thought it was okay to kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. Whereas the Allies viewed this as morally reprehensible this is genuine moral disagreement.

As for premise 2 I don't think it follows that objective morality doesn't exist, for example lets follow the same example of Nazi views vs the Allie's views. At the Nuremberg trials where we convicted the Nazi's we said to them they shouldn't of done that, they responded they were following the orders of their government, we responded back that they had a moral obligation to disobey a immoral law, Why? Because there's a moral law, which is the international law, or what Thomas Jefferson called the law of nature, or what the apostle Paul calls the law written on your heart (romans chapter 2). That law is objective morality and the only way to adjudicate between these 2 laws (the ally laws and the Nazi laws) was to say that the ally's moral view was closer to that objective moral view than the nazi culture.

so in conclusion the law exists, some people just don't follow it as closely as others, and I believe no one follows it perfectly so when I say there's a standard that doesn't necessarily mean everyone is going to agree with that standard since that wouldn't be objective, that'd be conventional.

This is not even close to truth, because people can change minds over time, or make unintended mistakes.
That doesn't make the opinion's infallible, it'd still be infallible under subjective morality
My opponent needs to say what he means by infallible. If he means incapable of making mistakes, thats obviously not true. People can make mistakes by not having enough knowledge when making decisions. If he means incapable of being wrong, that too would be false as people can change minds and standards over time.
Well I thought infallible was just a common definition but to define it:
Incapable of being wrong of falsified 
As for standards changing over time (which is what you responded to if I used this definition) that still wouldn't make that opinion wrong, not at the time at least. To imply a opinion on morality is wrong would be conceding the debate, since that'd make morality objective.
If he means incapable of being objectively wrong, he would need to first prove that moral judgments can be objectively wrong. However, that would still not prove objective morality. Saying that moral judgment can be objectively wrong is not proof of objective moral judgment. Likewise, saying that opinion can be objectively wrong is not proof of objective opinion existing.
I dont really need to prove judgements can be objectively wrong since that's not exactly relevant to the argument. The argument is that in subjective morality the opinions are infallibly true then every moral view is true, for example saying "abortion is wrong" is infallibly true, yet its narcissistic in a way to say your opinion is 100% true, especially on a thing like abortion, you'd also need to affirm every view including my view that morality is objective.
Objective, to repeat again, means independent of an opinion.
Opinion cannot be independent of opinion, so moral judgment, being opinion, cannot be independent of an opinion at the same time.
Moral judgment is always based on arbitrary moral standard that is a result of an opinion, not independent of it. How can something be completely produced by brain and opinion at the same time be independent of it? It cannot.
As I pointed out earlier your in a way begging the question by presuming morality is a opinion.
No, there would not be true contradictions.
I can have one opinion. You can have opposite opinion. That is not any kind of "true contradiction". Its just two opposite things existing at the same time, but at a different place.
The opposite of owning a car is not owning a car, yet both happen at the same time, just with different places and different people.
Well thats not what I mean by a true contradiction korea, its not just people disagreeing, i elaborate on what I mean by true contradiction later in the argument I provided
One person can have two opposite opinions, and both opinions can exist at the same time, since they would be in different parts of brain.
The person would be contradicting himself, but it would not be any kind of true contradiction. It happens to people with multiple personalities. Consider it like two or more persons living in one brain.
They can have two opposite opinions but they cant both exist & both be true, same way how someone cant be artist, yet not be a artist at the same time. It wouldn't be true same way how I pointed out always disapproving of meat, and sometimes approving of meat is contradictory in the same sense.

As for multiple personality disorder (Cant say im too familiar with it but ill try my best to try and explain how this doesn't undermine it) I would say its more like 2 separate people disagreeing with each other, instead of the same person disagreeing with himself

Thanks for the fun first round.
Thank you too korea this shall be interesting.
Con
#4
Well apologies, by genuine moral disagreements, I mean people having differing views on ethical choices from each other, for example as I provided 2 people disagreeing on abortion
So by genuine moral disagreement, you just mean moral disagreement.

Well I believe your begging the question by assuming morality is a opinion
You are yet to prove the morality which exists independent of an opinion. Given that two rounds have passed, I guess you just conceded that you cannot find morality that exists independent of an opinion.

I showed how there cant be genuine moral disagreement
No. You did not show that anywhere.

Ive searched the web and I cant find a "Appeal to need" fallacy
Oh, you should be very familliar with it, given that Christians use it the most.

Appeal to need - a claim that something exists because there is our need for it.

It is often used in teleology.

 "two people have opposite opinions they are not in disagreement" is false, which is why you shouldn't believe in subjective morality as that's what subjective morality points to
Another false claim. Nowhere did you provide any reason why people cant disagree if morality is subjective. You merely provided an example of people disagreeing, and then concluded that they were not disagreeing.

You then try to compare my example of "I need objective morality to have genuine moral disagreement" to "having a million dollars makes me happy, but that doesnt bring cash into existence" This is a disanalogy
It is not a disanalogy. You said that if you need something, it exists. I simply stated that such logic is false, using analogy that has same logic in it.
And you are yet to prove that you need objective morality to have moral disagreement. So really, until you prove your premises, you have no case.

So to prove this is a disanalogy id have to prove it isnt parallel, lets look at the 2 views
"I need one million dollars in my pocket to be happy, the need of happiness brings cash into existence"
and my view:
"Genuine moral disagreement exist, subjective morality cant account for this, therefore subjective morality is false"
I don't see how this is parallel at all and I implore the judges to see how vacuous this analogy is.
This is a strawman fallacy. The analogy was about your argument of need. I clearly pointed it out multiple times and said that just because there is a need, doesnt mean that the needed thing exists.
But to answer your  argument, you didnt prove that "subjective morality cant account for this". Your premise is just an assumption. Until you provide an actual reason to defend your premise, there is no case.
Further, since morality is an opinion and only exists thanks to opinion, it naturally follows that different opinions produce moral disagreements.
Subjective morality, depending upon opinion, would indeed produce moral disagreements due to different opinions.
Disagreement by definition means having different opinion. 
So my opponent's premise that people would not be able to have different opinions on morality if morality depended on opinion, is an obvious contradiction. Since my opponent's premise is self-contradicting, his argument falls apart.

Now this is a non-sequitur, the conclusion doesn't follow. The premises are
1) People disagree on morals
2) Therefore objective morality doesnt exist
Incorrect.
My opponent didnt respond to the argument I made:
"Different opinions, different morality. Since moral debates depend upon arbitrary moral standard, and arbitrary moral standard depends upon opinion and brain, it follows that the core of morality is subjective."

It was up to my opponent to point us to objective moral standard. The burden of proof is on him, since he is the one proving the positive claim that "objective morality exists".

there's a moral law, which is the international law, or what Thomas Jefferson called the law of nature, or what the apostle Paul calls the law written on your heart (romans chapter 2). That law is objective morality and the only way to adjudicate between these 2 laws (the ally laws and the Nazi laws) was to say that the ally's moral view was closer to that objective moral view than the nazi culture
You are yet to demonstrate that international law exists independent of an opinion, or that "law of nature" exists independent of an opinion.

You are again using an appeal to need.
"the only way to adjudicate between these 2 laws"
Again, just because you needed objective morality to objectively adjudicate, doesnt make objective morality true.

First, you would need to prove that you needed objective morality to subjectively adjudicate between two laws, or that subjective adjudication couldnt happen.
People can do subjective adjudication while thinking they are being objective, or lying that they are being objective.

Second, you would need to prove that objective adjudication actually happened. 
In subjective morality, there is obviously subjective adjudication. People dont need objective morality to judge others. To claim otherwise is nonsense, because then you would also be saying that Nazi judging Jews to death was done with objective morality.

That doesn't make the opinion's infallible, it'd still be infallible under subjective morality
My opponent doesnt understand what infallible means. It means incapable of being wrong or incapable of making mistake.

Even with subjective morality, people can still be wrong by their own or someone's elses standard, and they can still make mistakes, and they can still change their minds, obviously. Since morally wrong is subjective, its obvious that people can be subjectively wrong and subjectively right when dealing with morality.

To imply a opinion on morality is wrong would be conceding the debate, since that'd make morality objective.
To imply that opinion on morality is subjectively wrong does not in any way prove objective morality. It merely states subjective morality where certain things are wrong according to one standard, and right according to different standard. Thats what subjective morality is all about.

I dont really need to prove judgements can be objectively wrong
Well, you do. You claimed it.

You claimed:
"Premise: "Our moral judgements are not infallible"."

It was your premise, so you do need to prove it if you plan to get anywhere with this particular argument.

Obviously, in subjective morality, moral opinions can be wrong according to different subjective standard. This makes your premise false from the start.

Maybe you meant objectively infalliable, but that would require you to prove that moral opinion can be objectively wrong, since your premise is either that it can be objectively or subjectively wrong. Which one is it?

They can have two opposite opinions but they cant both exist & both be true
Of course they can. Different parts of brain have different opinions, sometimes even opposite opinions. I can like ice cream and you can not like ice cream. They are opposite opinions that exist at the same time, just in different places.

, same way how someone cant be artist, yet not be a artist at the same time.
False analogy, since artist and non-artist would be forced to occupy same space, where opposite opinions can occupy different places, like different persons or different parts of brain.

The only thing that would be a contradiction would be two opposite things existing at the same time in same space. That doesnt exist in subjective morality, so your argument doesnt stand since it depended on that premise.
Round 3
Pro
#5
So by genuine moral disagreement, you just mean moral disagreement.
Yes, I was specifying genuine to specify the person wasn't lying, for example I could say I support abortion, but that'd be lying and therefore not genuine
You are yet to prove the morality which exists independent of an opinion. Given that two rounds have passed, I guess you just conceded that you cannot find morality that exists independent of an opinion.
This is begging the question, as I pointed out this debate is about if its a opinion or fact, therefore in assuming its a opinion you are begging the question in favor of moral subjectivism.
No. You did not show that anywhere.
Please go re-read the premises I showed you how its not possible.
Oh, you should be very familliar with it, given that Christians use it the most.

Appeal to need - a claim that something exists because there is our need for it.

It is often used in teleology.
So I committed this by pointing out that you cant have genuine moral disagreement with moral subjectivism, yet we have moral subjectivism. This is a strawman, you should be familiar with that since your familiar with this obscure fallacy.
Another false claim. Nowhere did you provide any reason why people cant disagree if morality is subjective. You merely provided an example of people disagreeing, and then concluded that they were not disagreeing.
Go read my justification for the original arguement
It is not a disanalogy. You said that if you need something, it exists. I simply stated that such logic is false, using analogy that has same logic in it.
And you are yet to prove that you need objective morality to have moral disagreement. So really, until you prove your premises, you have no case.
It is a disanalogy they were polar opposite examples
This is a strawman fallacy. The analogy was about your argument of need. I clearly pointed it out multiple times and said that just because there is a need, doesnt mean that the needed thing exists.
But to answer your  argument, you didnt prove that "subjective morality cant account for this". Your premise is just an assumption. Until you provide an actual reason to defend your premise, there is no case.
I never argued there was need, I argued it existed and couldnt exist in your view, therefore your view is false. Its not a strawman either I put your view there. And I pointed out reasons as to why
Further, since morality is an opinion and only exists thanks to opinion, it naturally follows that different opinions produce moral disagreements.
Begging the question, arguing in a circle
Subjective morality, depending upon opinion, would indeed produce moral disagreements due to different opinions.
Disagreement by definition means having different opinion. 
So my opponent's premise that people would not be able to have different opinions on morality if morality depended on opinion, is an obvious contradiction. Since my opponent's premise is self-contradicting, his argument falls apart.
But it doesnt produce disagreement, the idea itself is flawwed
Incorrect.
elaborate
My opponent didnt respond to the argument I made:
"Different opinions, different morality. Since moral debates depend upon arbitrary moral standard, and arbitrary moral standard depends upon opinion and brain, it follows that the core of morality is subjective."
As I pointed out with my nazi culture vs axis culture this doesn't rebutt my claim
It was up to my opponent to point us to objective moral standard. The burden of proof is on him, since he is the one proving the positive claim that "objective morality exists".
And you assume its a opinon, your begging the question which is fallacious
You are yet to demonstrate that international law exists independent of an opinion, or that "law of nature" exists independent of an opinion.
Begging the question, arguing in a circle
You are again using an appeal to need.
"the only way to adjudicate between these 2 laws"
Again, just because you needed objective morality to objectively adjudicate, doesnt make objective morality true.
Appeal to need isnt even a accepted fallacy, and its not a appeal to need I was pointing out how just because people disagree it doesnt mean its not objective.
First, you would need to prove that you needed objective morality to subjectively adjudicate between two laws, or that subjective adjudication couldnt happen.
People can do subjective adjudication while thinking they are being objective, or lying that they are being objective.
You do, how do you legislate opinions? The argument wasn't that you need moral objectivity to adjudicate (although you do) your missing the point
Second, you would need to prove that objective adjudication actually happened. 
In subjective morality, there is obviously subjective adjudication. People dont need objective morality to judge others. To claim otherwise is nonsense, because then you would also be saying that Nazi judging Jews to death was done with objective morality.
Your missing the point of my argument and are attacking a absolute strawman, a strawman is harder to knock over than what your attacking
My opponent doesnt understand what infallible means. It means incapable of being wrong or incapable of making mistake.
Did I not say infallible was being incapable of being wrong? Let me understand, you ask me for my definition, I give you my definition, and you say my definition is wrong. Whats the point of asking my definition? 
Even with subjective morality, people can still be wrong by their own or someone's elses standard, and they can still make mistakes, and they can still change their minds, obviously. Since morally wrong is subjective, its obvious that people can be subjectively wrong and subjectively right when dealing with morality.
Hold up subjectively wrong doesnt mean wrong, your trying to imply objectivity to subjectivity
To imply that opinion on morality is subjectively wrong does not in any way prove objective morality. It merely states subjective morality where certain things are wrong according to one standard, and right according to different standard. Thats what subjective morality is all about.
You didnt say subjectively wrong, in your words they would be (subjectively) wrong because they're opinion changed? Its a non-sequitur and you poorly worded it if this was your intended meaning
Well, you do. You claimed it.
Well your begging the question by assuming they arent. Korea understand, its like going into a debate about if pedophilia is wrong or not and putting for the definition of pedophilia: "Pedophilia is a morally good attraction to children" your already assuming your right, hence begging the question, begging the question in favor of subjective morality
You claimed:
"Premise: "Our moral judgements are not infallible"."

It was your premise, so you do need to prove it if you plan to get anywhere with this particular argument.
Prove they are objectively true, if im assuming, your assuming as well
Obviously, in subjective morality, moral opinions can be wrong according to different subjective standard. This makes your premise false from the start.
Being wrong is different from being subjectively wrong, your mistaken
Maybe you meant objectively infalliable, but that would require you to prove that moral opinion can be objectively wrong, since your premise is either that it can be objectively or subjectively wrong. Which one is it?
No they are subjectively infallible under subjective morality, as they literally cant be wrong
Of course they can. Different parts of brain have different opinions, sometimes even opposite opinions. I can like ice cream and you can not like ice cream. They are opposite opinions that exist at the same time, just in different places.
Okay as we pointed out both opinions are infallible, meaning they both aren't wrong. So they can be polar opposite and both not be wrong which is contradictory, the analogy you provided is in no way analogous to morality, ice cream =/= morality
False analogy, since artist and non-artist would be forced to occupy same space, where opposite opinions can occupy different places, like different persons or different parts of brain.
But they are different personalities so in a way they are different states of mind.
The only thing that would be a contradiction would be two opposite things existing at the same time in same space. That doesnt exist in subjective morality, so your argument doesnt stand since it depended on that premise.
Yes which moral subjectivity supports, therefore is not true. I feel as if your not listening to my arguments and I'm trying to be patient but its getting hard.

Conclusion:
I dont think my opponent really addressed my arguments well, it also seems as if he/her (im not aware) wasn't really even understanding what my argument was addressing. And instead of addressing my entire argument took the premises outside of the context I provided. Overall I thank korea for the debate but I don't think it was productive in the slightest, which I guess is impossible to avoid sometimes (not that im not at fault for some of it either, I made some impolite comments in hindsight).
Con
#6
Thank you for the debate.