There is an objective morality

My opponent states,1: Morality is dependent upon the existence of subjective experience 2: Morality is a manger of subjective experience 3: Subjective experiences have objectively ideal subjective experiences 4: To objectively violate an objectively ideal subjective experience is to be objectively wrong in a moral sense. I would agree with point 1, I would agree with point 2, I am uncertain as to point 3 however I contest point 4. My objections are. 1: My opponent has failed to make the case that the fulfilment of an objectively ideal subjective experience is moral, or the violation of an objectively ideal subjective experience is immoral. 2: This is not what morality is defined as, it is what morality could be defined as, but as there is no objective reason to base morality on this concept my opponent is a moral relativist arguing for his own subjective view of morality. 3: Objectively ideal subjective experiences are in what way objectively ideal? In terms of the production of happiness or well being? What is the objective reason for valuing these principles above others, is the pursuit of happiness intrinsically moral? 4: What if it were the case that my objectively ideal experience was to marry a specific person, this action, whether I knew it or not would have the greatest utility of all possible actions for the pursuit of happiness. For whatever reason this marriage violated the moral opinions of my Priest. Objectively who is right? My opponent has failed to address these issues. My opponent does attempt to address point 2 here, "Since morality is dependent upon the existence of subjective experience, morality must then be a manger of subjective experience. So therefore, to objectively violate an objectively ideal subjective experience is to objectively violate or worsen what morality manages. " Morality is a manager, not the manager, morality is the arbitrary emotive distinction of what is right or wrong in reference to morality itself. Again how are subjective experiences to be judged, again how is this morality? My opponent seems to still be arguing for a sort of utilitarianism-hedonism, a replacement for morality? "This is confusion; it isn’t entirely true to say that my argument “equates ideal experiences… with morality”. Rather my argument points out that morality is a manger of subjective experience. (Not that they are one and the same)" Actually by definition it has to do the former as well as the latter for it to hold water at all. "Bob and Jill’s desires in this situation: B (Bob) desires C (To rape) J (Jill) desires D (To not be raped) What they need to do to get what they want: B needs to violate J to get C J needs to not be violated to get D Bob would be the only one objectively violating an objectively ideal subjective experience. " My opponent has simply rephrased my point without rebuttal. Why should Bob care about violating another's objectively ideal subjective experience? Bob's objectively ideal subjective experience is to rape Jill. Jills objectively ideal experience is to avoid being raped by Bob. If morality is founded upon the pursuit of ideal subjective experiences then it is moral for Bob to attempt to rape Jill, immoral for him to not rape Jill. It is moral for Jill to run away, immoral for her to submit. They each have differing and conflicting moralities, if we even accept that this is a moral scenario (which opponent must do), he must therefore accept that this is an example of moral relativism.