Morality is not intersubective

"the choice to not be rational is incompatible with discovering what is right or wrong" The lack of being rational is how determine what is right and wrong. We do not start off as beings that are fully rational. We must learn what is right or wrong; that knowledge is what makes us become rational. Such as a baby putting his hand in a fire. Is he being irrational? No, for he does not know that fire burns. He hurts himself, then decides not to do it again. That is rational thinking evolving from knowledge. Therefore rationality is an end to knowledge. So what is rational to one person may be irrational to another. Even if you want to compare to people with similar education levels. Drinking alcohol. Two teenagers may both know the harms. One drinks, the other does not. Both are being rational in their own minds. Therefore rational thinking is also subject. If morality comes from rational thinking, then it is impossible for morality to not be subjective. "Until they've made a choice of certain death they are, it happens, still subject to the fact that they chose to preserve their life" You did not argue my previous argument that "just because they do not value their life does not mean that they value their death." Your moral code to uphold is essentially a preservation of life. A differing opinion does not have to be a preservation of death, but simply a lack of proactive action to preserve life as a primary goal. You already said that we are only debating a primary goal that is valued above all else. By not valuing one's life above all else, they are no longer under the same moral code that you name. They cease to advocate the preservation of their life. I will reference your own quote again that "the only difference between people is, not the standard of right or wrong, but the degree to which they have identified and consistently applied it. The implicit standard, life, remains the same." This further enforces my argument that adherence to a moral stance is not absolute but in degrees. By not advocating their life, that is a degree of valuing death. Not a degree of valuing life. But also, we must focus again on the value itself. If a soldier values his country over his life, he does not have to die before he truly values his country over his life. As soon as he does not value his life as the ultimate end to any mean, he ceases to have life as his primary goal and moral code. At the moment he is willing to die for his country, he values his country's safety as put's that as his primary goal. Then, his moral code is based around what actions will keep his country safer. Another point you bring up is that "they chose to preserve their life-- long before they were ever aware there was a victory to be had." You are under the impression that morals can never change. If this is true, we must all receive our morals when we are born. But we are not fully cognizant of the world to a point to develop morals. Each person adopts morals at different times and frequently changes them. A universal moral is one that everyone accepts, not once in their live, but always. If someone changes away from valuing morality, he has learned that his life is not the ultimate goal. This act makes morality intersubjective. The last point you make is the soldiers are trained to value their job over their life. First, you never give any reason why morals can not be taught. Why do some consider killing wrong? Society tells us so. And second, when a soldier listens to a command, he is acknowledging that he values the reason why he follows the command over his life. My statement is this: My opponent fails to prove a universal mode code when someone ceases to value his/her life. A soldier values his or her country above his/her life. At that point, his primary moral is different from another's. Morality then becomes subjective. My opponent also uses rational thought as the reason for our morals. However, I have proved that rational thought is dependent upon knowledge, and those with different educations may have different rational conclusion. One is not more rational over the other. But, their conclusion is different. If they use their rational thought to have morals, morality must be intersubjective.