Morality is subjective

Before I begin with my main argument, I would like to defend my definition of morality.A definition's purpose is to allow symbols to refer to ideas so as to facilitate easier means of communication. In this way we can reduce complex ideas to single words, allowing us to be more concise when referring to webs of ideas. Therefore, when we define an idea, we are simply making a connection between a word and an idea. We are saying, in effect, "we shall use this word to refer to this idea." This is perfectly acceptable and preferrable as long as one acknowledges that the word and idea have no deeper connection. We simply attach the word to the idea for our own convenience, and not because of any "correct" definition. There is no such thing as a "correct" definition. There are, however, good and bad definitions. As an example, let us look at two different definitions of the word "law".Law - a rule instated by a governing entity placing restrictions on what people can or cannot do.Law - the speed limit, the rule against larceny, the rule against murder, etc.The first definition is highly superior to the second because while the second one simply provides examples of what a law is, the first definition provides a clear boundary between things that are not laws and things that are. This is preferrable because drawing a diving line is our purpose in creating a definition. When one only provides examples, then they are allowing for wildly different ideas to form about what we are defining. However, if I had only offered the second definition for a law, then I could not claim to reject that definition without providing a better one.Likewise, my opponent has claimed to reject my definition without providing a superior one.Worse yet, my opponent's arguments demonstrate that they actually accept my definition. "This is a moral, and regardless of what the circumstances are, it is a moral that everyone should have." "certain morals must remain for a society to remain intact,"With that out of the way, here are my definitions:Morality - "a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons" [1]Objectivity - "the idea that the claims, methods and results [...] are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests" [2]I will now present my main arguments in favor of morality being subjective.Contention One: Hume's Is/Ought GapDavid Hume was an English philosopher who dabbled in many ideas and is also the creator of the idea known as the Is/Ought Gap. Here it is, in his words:“Reason is the discovery of truth or falshood. Truth or falshood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relations of ideas, or to the real existence and matter of fact. Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason. Now ‘tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement; being original facts and realities, compleat in themselves, and implying no reference to other passions, volitions, and actions. ‘Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounc’d either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.”What David Hume is essentially stating is that a fundamental gap exists between "Is" statements (statements of observable reality) and "Ought" statements (statements of moral obligation). Because we obtain our knowledge from observable reality, all knowledge that we can have is either reduced from our observations or from incorrigible knowledge. However, neither of these categories includes moral knowledge. We cannot observe morality through our senses. We cannot measure morality with instruments. Thus, all knowledge that we observe is essentially non-moral. This being the case, we can also know that non-moral knowledge cannot reduce to moral knowledge, and thus it is impossible to make a claim about morality.Contention Two: ObjectivityAs discussed before, for an idea to be objective, it needs to be independent from any internal bias. Therefore, an objective truth must be unchanging. However, ideas about morality have never been unchanging, and indeed vary wildly between time periods and even between people. My opponent themself admits this:"Some morals can change due to certain conditions,"Given this, we can conclude from our definition of objectivity that it is impossible for an idea such as morality to be considered objective.I will briefly address my opponent's case. My opponent's arguments are not actually in favor of morality being objective, but rather that society would be better if we all adopted an objective moral code. However, the very idea of being better also depends on an objective definition of morality, making my opponent's argument circular in nature. This is also my opponent's only argument.Over to you, Con.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...