Morals and Ethics are a subjective matter

Let's get on with it. Internal Morality"Firstly, My opponent makes no distinction between this risk aversion and subjective morality. "True, I failed to make this distinction clearly, allow me to clarify. The root of developmental morality in psychology comes out of Freudian psychoanalytics, everyone probably knows what he was about: Id, Ego & Superego. The Id is our basic desires and the Superego are the pressures of society to act within a moral code, however the Ego is often misunderstood as our own supposed "subjective" morality but it is not. "According to Freud, the ego is part of personality that mediates the demands of the id, the superego and reality. "[1] The Ego isn't a guiding structure in of itself " it does not exist without internal desires and the external rules " it is a concept of conflict mediation created by the play between the two. It is a reaction to conflicts of interest and does not have unique drives of it's own. Perhaps this point doesn't refute your case, but when you allow my State arguments to go unchallenged your case sure is refuted. "Secondly, he gives no warrant as to why morality must be internalized to be subjective. "Refer to "The Republic" warrant if you want one. Simply claiming no warrant doesn't protect you from my analysis either, especially when you give no counter warrant yourself. While my opponent does hold a hope that his morality would not be objective to me if he came to my house, which is true because we'd be having a lively debate, the point is that when morality is supported by force it becomes objective and unquestionable. If Warabe came to my house with a shotgun leveled or a S. W. A. T. opening the door for him, I'd be in a submissive mood. [1] . http://psychology.about.com...Can We Internalize? "Thirdly, my opponent makes the argument from authority fallacy when claiming that because Plato couldn't come up with a way to internalize societal norms. .. "1. This isn't an argument from authority fallacy, Plato is about as legit as you can get. .. Yo.2. To simply elaborate, conformity never lasts. Whatever group you enter next will change your conformation as by your own argumentation, peer pressure is a great example of morality being imposed. The problem that my opponent continually has is demonstrating how morality can be solidified in a person versus another morality in order to create a synthesis between the two to have a subjective morality. That is the necessary component of a subjective morality that he has continually failed to demonstrate. My argument, to clarify, is that the only solid morality that exists is the objective one forced upon us by society. Morality of Nations"Fourthly, my opponent gives no actual warrant for why societal morality is objective. .. "Really? Look to my following arguments for where my warrants were. Failing that, consider the analytics. ". .. a state or society cannot divulge some sort of moral code onto us because it's not even a moral actor capable of being held morally accountable. Lloyd Gerson explains. .. "Cool little known source, problem is Gerson, if anything, supports my argument. After all, when did I ever say that the State is the source of this objective morality? 1. My opponent is making the real Argument from Authority Fallacy; you use a single author, who I've actually never heard of even though I'm studying modern Sophists and Neo-Aristotelians right now (yeah, I've got a lot of interests). Gerson makes all of these assertions independent of others in the field considering the lack of citations in his paper, only sighting three other scholars as far as I can see. Meaning, when we consider what a fallacious appeal to authority is[1], my opponent makes this fallacy when he fails to support Gerson with other authors.2. Let's consider what Gerson actually says instead of paraphrasing him:"In fact, it frequently appears that the proposal of employing the fiction of moral agency when talking about nations is itself based upon moral considerations. It is supposed that the fiction is a legitimate facilitator for connecting the moral prescriptions devolving upon individuals with other individuals belonging to other nations. The fiction has a kind of negative effect. That is, there is nothing about a nation that prevents the internationalization of morality. On the contrary, nations are just delivery systems for the actions flowing from moral prescriptions. " pp. 78-79 [2]Returning to the dropped argument that state and non-state actors enforce morality legalistically and heuristically (Marx's Material Dialectic), Gerson supports this assertion in his critique of the State. Meaning, that states are simply tools for the power elite to dictate their own morality, their "moral prescriptions". The State is a vehicle for them. While my opponent continually asks why this is objective, I'll answer again: such a morality that we submit to cannot be questioned nor reinterpreted, therefore it is objective because it is not influenced by our own feelings as subjects of the State. [3]3. Warabe asserts and I concede that State cannot be held morally responsible. True words. When was the last time liberal commentators held President Obama to the same standard of "anything we can do to save a child's life, is worth doing" that he's used to further his Gun Control push in his use of drones overseas? Which, by the way, kills a ton of children, 178 as of December. [4] This only solidifies my argument that the morality that is pressed onto us cannot be questioned. The State may choose to entertain popular arguments, such as gun control, but only for it's own ends. I mean really, what would happen if there was an effectual assault weapons ban? The American people would have no means to defend themselves from an overreaching authority that we've already established cannot be morally objected to. If anything, this unquestionable position only empowers the State against the protests of it's subjects and their attempts to create subjective morality. Meaning? Holy guacamole, the objectivity of morality enforced by the State is more powerful than I first thought. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://books.google.com...[3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] . http://www.alternet.org...Finally, I'd like to remind everyone about the fellow who hasn't been getting much attention: Kant. Using his analysis and the power of the State, the only morality that exists is his idea of "duty" which is created and enforced by the State. So, what the heck does this all mean? The way this debate has progressed so far is that while Warabe has presented a seemingly common sense case, when compared against the overwhelming power of submission employed by the State and society, there is no such thing as "subjective" morality. While you, the reader, may disagree, my opponent has failed to articulate how an individual, the only possible location of a subjective morality, can resist the power of the State. This alone shows how my case overwhelms his. Secondly, my opponent's attempts at offense on my case have been unsuccessful, only giving me the prompt to either clarify my case or use his own arguments against him, such as his Gerson warrant. My contentions still stand, have been empowered and function over his own. Also, final note, saying points 1 & 2 are turned on their heads does not make it so. Considering there's no articulation there on WHY and my opponent is just trying to mischaracterize the debate, such assertions shuld be disregarded.