Morality is subjective

Final Round. First of all, I didn't provide a new definition because I wanted my opponent to provide another one, because theirs was clearly biased. However, here is a new and better definition to replace my opponents faulty definition: "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." This definition isn't biased like my opponent's is. It doesn't contain any words that could mean anything, for example, "rational", which could mean someone who thinks the Earth is flat, but it simply states what morality is. Second of all, my opponent should take a closer look at my arguments. For my first argument I stated an example of a moral that should, and does, remain the same throughout every society. I didn't say that some minor opinions humans have can't change, because changing political views is rational. However, changing the morals on which these views are based on is not rational. For my second argument, again, I stated that some morals must remain for a society to remain intact, not all morals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTION 1 REFUTATION- My opponent is essentially saying that there is a separation between knowledge and morals. This is true. However, they are wrong in that , and I quote, "All knowledge that we can have is either reduced from our observations or from incorrigible knowledge." They go on to say that because of this, having moral knowledge is impossible, because we can not observe it in any way, shape, or form. However, my opponent is misguided in saying this. Before we (as in humanity) had the technology we have today, we thought certain things were impossible. We certainly would laugh at the invention of a computer, which we all take for granted today. Who's to say we won't create an instrument that measures morality? It may not be anytime in the near future, but technology can surprise us. However, let's just say that there will never be a physical instrument that can measure morality. Just because we can't see something or measure something doesn't necessarily mean we can't have knowledge about it. For instance, we have knowledge about religion, and this is something we can't see or measure. We also have law codes. Thousands of years ago there was a king by the name of Hammurabi, who invented the Hammurabi's code. In this very famous law code, murder was punishable by death. In America, the death penalty for murder is still enforced in most states. To conclude, it is a fact that morality is not knowledge, but this doesn't mean that having moral knowledge is impossible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECOND CONTENTION REFUTATION- Let me just state that, again, I didn't say that opinions can't change. There isn't a big debate over whether people don't have different political views. However, there is a big debate over whether people think the senseless murder of innocents is acceptable under any circumstances. Of course psychopaths exist, but they make up the vast minority of humanity. And yes, some ideas have changed throughout the course of time. However, going back to my contention one rebuttal, Hammurabi's code outlawed the murder of innocents, and this law is in place in practically every nation today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNTER REBUTTAL- My opponent misguided in saying that my arguments do not relate to morality being objective. My arguments for round two were about how humanity shouldn't adopt a subjective way of looking at morality, because humans are not inherently only subjective. Law codes are not subjective, they are objective. Seeing as law codes are essentially moral codes, law codes imply subjective morality. Back to pro.