Morality is subjective.

Thanks Pro.Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. In the comments you've affirmed that objective morality doesn't exist. Therefore, it must follow that all morality is subjective if no objective morals exist.-------------------------------------------------------------------I'll paraphrase your major points while remaining true to your logic.A.) Morality is learned by social norms and is constantly developing.B.) The Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was moral while roman catholics did not. Thus, morality is dependent on different beliefs. It follows that objective morality doesn't exist. ------------------------------------------------------------------A) response: I certainly believe that subjective morality exists. Some might find it wrong to eat meat because it requires the killing of an animal. Families and societies have all sorts of subjective morals. What I am arguing for, is that there are certain cases where:It is always "wrong" to 1) murder just for the sake of pleasure, and 2) rape someone against their will. These are two cases of objective morality where it is always true regardless of religion, society, or time period. The existence of any objective morals, even if it is only one case, shows that objective morality exists and that not all morals are subjective. There has been no record of any society in human history where these examples of moral abominations are not true. B) response: The aztecs had the belief that human sacrifice benefitted their society by pleasing false gods. This doesn't prove that all morality is subjective. In fact, they justified their sacrifices in some fashion. This sense of required justification extends to other extreme cases too, like the Salem Witch trials in 1692 for example. Where perceived "witches" were rounded up and burned at the stake. This is obviously a horrendous and false killing, but the instigators killed those people using the justification that they were witches. It is exceedingly obvious to state that murder for the sake of pleasure and rape against someone's will is wrong. Empirically, no society in any time period has record of laws condoning these moral wrongs without justification.Ted Bundy is considered one of, if not the most, evil and insidious serial killers in American history. His defense attorney had this to say about him, "Attorney Polly Nelson, a member of his last defense team, agreed. 'Ted,' she wrote, "was the very definition of heartless evil."http://en.wikipedia.org...Surely, you would think that one of the most notorious serial killers, who had a confirmed 30 homocides (random victims), would have no reason to see his behavior as wrong to some higher power. Here is an excerpt of what he had to say in his final interview, "It was like coming out of some horrible trance or dream. I can only liken it to (and I don’t want to overdramatize it) being possessed by something so awful and alien, and the next morning waking up and remembering what happened and realizing that in the eyes of the law, and certainly in the eyes of God, you’re responsible."There is also a similar situation in the final interview with Jeffrey Dahmer, the cannibal, serial rapist, and murderer where he claimed to know the difference from right and wrong and knew that he was fully responsible for his actions. So why did I bother bringing the morality of serial killers into this debate? Because even the most sick individuals that murder for the sake of pleasure know that their actions are morally wrong.This is contrary to the assertion that their morality is subjective because if it were subjective they wouldn't see their actions as wrong.Another problem claiming that all morality is subjective is this: your morality is no more true that IF somebody believes they are morally justified in killing another human being for the sake of their own pleasure or raping someone against their will is true. If we have a purposeless existence, no objective moral truth can exist and anybody is equally justified in claiming something to be moral that you deem to be immoral.