It is more likely than not that morality does not exist

The Existence of Subjective Morality Given the choice between arguing objective or subjective morality, as I am, I’ll choose the latter. Objective morality, then, cannot be attacked in any relevant sense from this point onward. To avoid possible misconceptions on your resolution, I’ll use the definition you provided for subjective morality in round one; that is, to paraphrase- a concept asserting that morality can change and vary based on different cultures and societies; in other words, morality based upon context. Further, you clarify that the concept of morality balances upon the proposition that “good and bad” choices exist- if I understand you correctly. To address your first proposition- and I’m going to again paraphrase here, in an attempt to consolidate my understanding of your argument (as I’ll do henceforth as needed, and without further apologetics)- that “Morality is unstable”, resulting in it being “… [defined] loosely…”, and thereby rendering it useless (“made me question, why create morality in the first place” being the statement I derived that viewpoint from). This moves in regressive form right into your second proposition; that is to say, the first contention is relevant only because of the second, and the second only because of the first. Because of this, disproving or proving irrelevant either portion will suffice for my obligation to address your arguments. After that point, I have only to prove subjective morality is likely to exist. That being said- the second argument ties into the first by claiming moralities uselessness as a concept is caused by the fact that it’s actually just instinct, redefined as something else; “… the belief in morality seems like a way to safeguard our instincts to mean something more than what they really are, and it is for that reason that I belief morality most likely doesn"t exist.” In other words, your thesis seems to be that morality doesn’t exist because it’s actually an ennobled way of defining our instincts, taking what they tell us to do, saying it’s good, what they tell us not to, and saying it’s bad, when in reality, it’s neither. Further, I take it that your example was meant to prove that instinct doesn’t prove what is good and bad, simply what is beneficial to the species. Here is where my actual argument begins, and coincidentally, my first contention will also be my first supporting statement; that I believe you have defined incorrectly what morality is. Not your initial definition, which I agreed to adhere to, but the latter, altered definition, stating morality is synonymous with instinct, simply redefined to elevate our perception of them, exalting them as something greater than what they actually are. I’d like to posit that morality is likely more closely related to the following definition, in addition to the one you gave initially- “The concept of good or bad actions, thoughts, and behaviors”, defined by whatever society the system or morality is subject to (as that is what subjective morality is) and further, that it is a result of their instinctual view of what is good or bad, and is thusly subject to change as the society itself changes, and/or evolves to be instinctually opposed to new and different actions or ideas. I believe that to be an accurate and sufficiently thorough description of what morality is. I don’t think you’d disagree that morality is based upon the instincts of the society in question (since that was part of your core argument), and I don’t think it’s a huge logical leap to see that our general system of morals is based upon our general instincts as a society. Some members of society won’t have the instinct to refrain from harming children, but those that do have that instinct outnumber the former to such an insurmountable extent that they’re irrelevant in a general sense. Similarly, to borrow your use of hyena analogies for a moment, some hyenas won’t have the instinct to refrain from killing their own species, but those handful are outnumbered to a comparable extent, and are thusly irrelevant in the general sense we must approach this from (because there will always be outliers, but outliers don’t determine the morality of a species, the general consensus does). Given that we can both agree instincts exist, and that I’ve proven sufficiently (I believe) that morality is based upon the general instincts of the species in question, I feel confident in making the statement that morality does, in a general, subjective sense, exist. Thank you for the incredibly thought provoking topic; I hope you have as much fun replying to my argument as I had writing it.