Moral subjectivism is false.

Circularity and IncoherenceThis argument from Pro is rather absurd. I can just say that if something is true, then it must be true that it is true, and it must be true that it is true that it is true. Does that mean truth is incoherent because of an apparent infinite regress? If it does then Pro cannot say his argument is true. Thus, his position here is self-refuting. In any event, I could just say that if moral realism is true then what is "good" is based on underlying objective reasons. However, there has to be objective reasons for those objective reasons, and objective reasons for those objective reasons for those objective reasons; thus Moral Realism is incoherent based on Pro's same reasoning.No Moral DisagreementPro says that if Moral Subjectivism is true, then there is no real moral disagreement. Since we operate as a society as if there is disagreement, then this implies Moral Subjectivism is wrong (hopefully I am not straw-manning Pro). However, it is not obvious that if Subjectvism in this sense is true, that there would be no moral disagreements based on Pro's arguments. As Keith Augustine states:"Subjectivism also does not deny that there are substantial moral disputes. It simply acknowledges that morality is a human (or sentient) invention... Moral disputes can arise even if the premises they arise from are invented; the premises of those disputes need not reside independently of us in some Platonic realm of ideas." - Keith Augustine[1]Either way, Pro seems to argue that we cannot debate things unless there is an objective answer. This is false. I have feelings of disagreement with my friend that Das Boot was the best movie ever made, but that doesn't mean that there is actually an objective answer to the question:Q: "What was the best movie ever made?" At the end of the day, what the best movie ever made is; is a subjective matter. It doesn't matter how "intuitive" you think it is to assume that The Godfather is a better movie than Gigli. That strong feeling of you being right doesn't change the fact that if someone says Gigli is better; they are not really wrong. Thus, even if Pro is right about the notion that people talk as if morality is objective, that doesn't seem to raise the probability of it actually being true. Similarly, just because people debate about movies as if there is a right answer, that doesn't mean there is a right answer. Therefore, Pro's argument here is not all that convincing to say the least.In any event, Pro asks us to imagine a rapist saying:1) I approve of raping children2) Raping children is goodPro asserts that they seem distinct. This is because Pro should have presented it as:1) I approve of raping children2) Raping children is good to meThe two above represent Moral Subjectivism more accurately, and entail two statements which do not seem distinct.Moral InfallibilityPro says that if Moral Subjectivism is true, then morality is infallible. Since we operate as if we could possibly wrong about certain moral claims, that this seems to imply Moral Realism. However, I disagree. Lets say I believed that punching old people in the mouth was fine until my father talked to me and changed my mind. According to Pro, this implies that I realized I was wrong. However, if I was wrong, then there must be an objective answer to that moral question! What stinks with this argument? Well, all my father did was convert me into someone who shares the same views as him. It doesn't follow from this that my fathers view is the correct view, just that I realized that my feelings fall more in line with his view after further consideration. Therefore, if someone asks:"I may approve of shooting random people, but is shooting random people actually right/good?" What they actually could be saying is:"I may approve of shooting random people, but is shooting random people really what I approve of after further consideration, and will continue to approve of in the future?"People change their subjective feelings all the time... Thus, I am not sure that Pro has really pointed out any problems in the idea of Moral Subjectivism with his line of reasoning. ArbitrarinessPro claims that if one approves of x, then they approve of it for a reason. However, this reason would be what makes something good, not my approval of it. Since morality being subjective presupposes that it is the approval of a thing that makes it good; Moral Subjectivism is false. However, Pro hasn't actually shown that it is the reason for approval that adequately makes x good, instead of the approval of it. This crucial premise was just assumed. Perhaps it is the case that until approval occurs, we have no sufficient condition for subjective morality (with a reason for approval being just a necessary condition for subjective morality). Until Pro rules that possibility out; his dilemma cannot even get off the ground. ConclusionPro's arguments in favor of Moral Subjectivism being false are simply lackluster. If they are not self-refuting, they have hidden or unproved premises that have not been demonstrated. Since I have undermined all of my opponent's arguments sufficiently; Pro has not established the resolution. Source[1] http://www.infidels.org...