Morality is subjective

Thanks for your response. I'm glad to have gotten the opportunity to debate this with such a strong-willed opponent, and wish her the best of luck. == CONTENT == 1. Morality 2. Moral Inconsistency 3. The CImp ---> Proposed universalisable law 4. Summary =========== 1. Morality This has still gotten us nowhere. Even if what my opponent is arguing is true, it doesn't disprove the idea that morality is objective; it simply would disprove that some people have no sense of morality. The two are not mutually exclusive. 2. Moral Inconsistency My opponent does not realize that the trio of results all stem directly and logically from my opponent's granted premises. Nonetheless, I'll address them down the list. R1) Even if this is too broad, it still follows from the definition of morality that, because they are attempting to achieve some ultimate good, they are attempting to conform to their interpretation of morality. R2) This point can be extended for my opponent literally refuted what I was saying WITH what I was saying. She writes, "Some people may think the society is mostly very moral and others may think that it is very moral. " I agree. Extend R2. R3) They are interpreting what is their ultimate greatest good; again, this comes directly from my opponent's premises. We agree that societies attempt to write laws that are good for them, and from R2 we agree that they have different interpretations of the same good; for this reason, moral interpretations can be polar opposites, although they are trying to achieve the same thing. My conclusion stands; everyone has an ideal "moral code" that they aim to achieve, although many of them may come up short or even on the wrong train track. This is sufficient reason to vote Con. 3. The CImp This point stands through the debate, with the exception to the objection to a universalisable law, which I proposed and will addressed. After, that, there will be 3 fully valid reasons to vote Con. ==========> INNOCENT PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE KILLED GRATUITOUSLY <========== Going down my opponent's points, and the questions of each point in order. .. 1. A baby fresh out of the womb is innocent. You know they are innocent because they were just born. These can be absolutely answered. 2. Pleasure is not a sufficient reason to gratuitously murder an infant; further, pleasure is never a good enough justification for anything when it comes to morality, which Immanuel Kant argues is only an issue for "rational beings". Rational beings make judgements based on reason and logic, as opposed to pleasure and emotion. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Summary Pro is left empty handed. With a distinction being made between moral inconsistency and morality itself, Pro's argument merely boils down to an agreement with my position, that being that an objective morality exists and which we attempt to align our lifestyles to through our own interpretations. Meanwhile, Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative through three rock-solid formulations leaves us with a method by which we can approximately define a moral law or two. It seems, given the content of the debate, a Con vote would line up nicely.