Reasonably Morals are Subjective

I will argue that morals are subjective for X core reasons: 1. Instability: Morals have 'arguments' that are generally unstable producing the same ends through different means to the same conclusion which in turn weakens their universal value. I'll offer an array example: A) "Murder is wrong because God said it is." B) "Murder is wrong because no one deserves to die." C) "Murder is wrong because harming others is wrong." D) "Murder is wrong because life is sacred and must be preserved." E) "Murder is wrong because it is inherently harmful to human society and survival." These are all very different reasons coming to the same conclusion yet not all of them are required in order to achieve the same conclusion. Most of them however do not have any implications of reasoning but instead are deductive in nature expressing that it is wrong on the grounds of being related to a nonsequitur element. 2. Inconsistency: Morals are often amended as per the situation granting a clear difference between one act and another despite there being no real differentiation. I offer another array: A) "A man steals $1 from a child who only has $5 and is trying to save for a toy. The same man steals $1 from a billionaire who isn't even aware it's missing.", in this example materiality is the deciding factor and often one crime is considered worse than the other despite the fact that they are actually the same act. B) "A man kills another man over an insult. The same man previously killed another man who he caught cheating with his wife.", in this example we note the same crime, killing a person, but in the latter example at times you will be able to get a different judgment (crime of passion) presuming that the motive to kill was different and it was done out of rage however the prior example is the same crime with the same argument of passion but it is not seen as a sound defense. C) "A man tells a lie that saves a life by falsely convicting another person who would eventually have harmed someone else. A man tells a lie that ruins a life by also falsely convicting another person who would not eventually have harmed someone else.", in this example we note that argument of potential in both scenarios and how they harp on the unknown. The crime is the same, lying, particular perjury, but the outcomes are rated differently therefore if found out that man A was dangerous then the liar is praised but if man B turns out harmless is there justice all the same? Will the liar be considered for perjury for one and not the other? 3. Lack of Integrity: Morals are quick to dissolve when contested particularly because they do not require adequate backing in order to achieve their state as a standard for behavior. My final array for this round: A) "It is wrong to clone things because it is unnatural", this appeal to nature is completely fallacious and yet was sufficient in the past (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) to be allowed as a legitimate contestant. Furthermore it was joined by other equivalent errors in thinking appealing to nature or divinity. B) "Being wealthy means being greedy and greed is immoral therefore wealth is immoral.", this is a widely believed and misquoted (https://www.biblegateway.com...) statement referring to "Money is the Root of All Evil" which is widely taught. The nature of this type of argumentation is circular because it doesn't explain why wealth equates greed but instead simply insists this is the case deductively. These arguments are common for other issues such as beauty as well where being naturally aligned with a social viewpoint of beauty makes one not a "real woman" with all sorts of emotional assertions being made about the matter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., https://www.facebook.com..., etc.) none of which are valid. Your turn.