Instigator / Pro
Americandebater24's avatar
0
Americandebater24
1442
rating
52
debates
58.65%
won
Topic
#6024

People need to stop assuming their path in life is the right one and accept that life is a subjective experience.

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
MAV99's avatar
0
MAV99
1500
rating
9
debates
72.22%
won
Description

This debate is about the subjectivity of life experiences. Pro takes the stance that life is subjective and therefore there is no right or wrong way to live, while Con takes the stance that life is not subjective and that there is a way of life to live that is right. Burden of proof is on both sides.

Round 1
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#1
I will start by thanking Con for accepting this debate. I am sure it will be a good debate.

First argument: The subjective nature of life

I will begin my argument by addressing life's subjective nature. No two lives are one and the same. Even if you grow up in the same town, culture, or even the same household, your life will not be the same as another human being. Your life choices will be influenced by subjective experiences, and your mindset will also ultimately be different due to the unique shaping of your viewpoints. Therefore, there cannot be an "objective" way you can live a life that can be applied universally to all the billions of people on this planet.

Second argument: Subjectivity is in our very own DNA.

It has long been established that humans have a unique genetic structure tied to every living human. This is supported by the fact that while humans share a great deal of genetic information, there's also considerable variation. As the National Institutes of Health explains, "The human genome comprises about 3 x 109 base pairs of DNA, and the extent of human genetic variation is such that no two humans, save identical twins, ever have been or will be genetically identical" (National Institutes of Health).

This unique genetic makeup contributes to the individuality of each person. Unlike genetic traits like athleticism or chronic disease, this structure can neither be replicated nor passed down from children. It is applicable to the individual, and when that individual dies, so too does the structure. This scientific fact simply reconfirms what the human experience has already taught us: that to be human is to be unique, and a unique being cannot be held to a universal standard of morality.

Third argument: Lack of evidence for an objective way to live life.

Humanity has been around for thousands of years. If there were such a thing as a right or wrong way to live a life, why has no such life been discovered up to date? We have subjective opinions on the matter, sure. But no evidence. Even if someone were to provide "evidence," how can we confirm its validity for all? After all, would not a universal truth have to be accepted by all, and if no such agreement is found, does the evidence not become subjective by nature? As David R. Hawkins stated, "All truth is subjective. Do not waste lifetimes looking for an objective truth because no such thing exists" (Veritas Publishing). We therefore not only lack any reason to believe in an objective way to live life, but are totally devoid of any truth in its very framework.

Conclusion:

Life is far too diverse, subjective, and devoid of any commonality that can establish a right or wrong way to live a life. While we can examine beliefs on what constitute a form of morality, that morality is born of a subjective outcome that is shaped by individual experiences that shape perception. Therefore, we must conclude that life is simply life and how we live it is neither right or wrong.
References:


MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Con
#2
Thank you Americandebater24 for this debate. I am quite happy to be able to debate this idea with you.
My first round will consist of my arguments and then my rebuttals to Pro's arguments.

1.) The necessary existence of objectivity in experience.

   There is an axiom that goes as follows: All knowledge starts in the senses.

Our mind is a blank slate before we begin to take in information from our senses. This immediately implies two things
1. What we sense outside of us is the cause of knowledge.
2. The quality of this knowledge is conditioned by the capacity of the person.

Pro is correct to say that there is an element to experience that makes it subjective. That subjective element is the capacity of the person to receive.

However Pro is incorrect to say that it is purely subjective. As shown above, what is outside of us that we sense is a cause of knowledge. That (the thing sensed) cannot be subjective. It is something outside of us. Without it experience does not exist. Objectivity is necessary in the first place because it is a cause of experience.

That then leads us to be able to say something objective, meaning we can speak with a physical word that implies sameness between what is in my mind and what is outside of it that caused me to know it. For example both Pro and I can say that we need air to breathe. While we probably need different amounts of air, different quality of air that still does not change the fact that we need air. It is an objective statement to say that we need air. This is an objective statement coming from experience. So while there is a subjective element it is not purely subjective you need objectivity.

2.) Objectivity is necessary for morality
    I will admit this one is a lot harder to argue because morality is a product of reason which is definitely more subjective in practice. However I still think there is some objectivity to it.

True morality comes from reason that is fed by experience which is caused by objective things. For example: I see my neighbor push somebody to the ground so that he could get the last cookie. I saw that; that is my experience. My neighbor did that; that is an objective fact. I understand there is a lack of due good in what my neighbor did and I see that while he wanted a good thing, the cookie, his means to getting it were evil. I can reason then to the conclusion: The end does not justify the means. I reasoned to a universal moral principle that always applies. That makes it an objective fact. (a moral principle has to be able to apply always in order to be a moral principle. So if one in there reasoning comes to the conclusion that can admit of exceptions, that is not a moral principle but a moral guideline.) The existence of individuals that have not reasoned to such conclusions does not affect the objective nature of the principle, since it's nature is based on the reality in front of us. While circumstances and the capacity of the individual can definitely change their culpability, circumstances and the capacity of the individual do not change morality of the action itself. That is why it is an act of kindness to tell someone that their actions are evil and explain to them why. You need not apply culpability when you do that. That is the true understanding of the phrase "do not judge."

In light of what is said above I argue that there is an objective element to life that affects experience and morality. Because of this there is a right way to live (this really only applies to the moral aspect) which is in accordance with those objective moral principles.

3.) Rebuttals

No two lives are one and the same. Even if you grow up in the same town, culture, or even the same household, your life will not be the same as another human being. Your life choices will be influenced by subjective experiences, and your mindset will also ultimately be different due to the unique shaping of your viewpoints. Therefore, there cannot be an "objective" way you can live a life that can be applied universally to all the billions of people on this planet.
While it is true that experiences can be different, they all still are caused by objective things. The uniqueness of an individual need not imply that there are not universal principles underlying all of it. MY experience with seeing my neighbor being rude to get the cookie is a very different experience than my friend who saw someone rob a bank to get money. Yet in both cases we can say objectively that their end did not justify their means.

This scientific fact simply reconfirms what the human experience has already taught us: that to be human is to be unique, and a unique being cannot be held to a universal standard of morality.
First off I would say this is an obvious non-sequitur. Uniqueness does not imply complete exception from universality. While definitely a fascinating paradox, human understanding transcends individual difference by seeing underlying similarities. There is a rather humorous saying: "you are unique like everybody else." We understand a underlying similarity. (language fundamentally uses the word "is" to show that.) Simply because we are different in our bodies and genetic makeup does not mean we are exempt from universal truths.

If there were such a thing as a right or wrong way to live a life, why has no such life been discovered up to date? We have subjective opinions on the matter, sure. But no evidence.
Life is a mix of subjective and objective elements. To put it another way: there is you and there is what is not you. What you are logically implying in this last argument of "lack of evidence" is that because there is no 100 percent objectivity it must therefore be 100 percent subjectivity. You bounce between extremes. Life is truly somewhere in the middle.

After all, would not a universal truth have to be accepted by all, and if no such agreement is found, does the evidence not become subjective by nature?
If someone denies that a thing is what it is, which is a universal truth, it is better to speak with a plant. We would rightly assume a major defect in the will of that person or in their brain.

 "All truth is subjective. Do not waste lifetimes looking for an objective truth because no such thing exists" (Veritas Publishing).
The problem with this statement is that it is trying to say something that is objective by its very nature. Which means it is a self-contradicting statement. I'm afraid Mr. Hawkins was trying to deny the very thing he was affirming.

Life is far too diverse, subjective, and devoid of any commonality that can establish a right or wrong way to live a life. 
I most certainly deny that life is devoid of any commonality. The very nature of reason is to know commonality between things. To deny that there is commonality between things is to deny that we have reason. 

Conclusion

Pro has done well to point out a part of life, but at the expense of denying those other aspects of life that make up the whole picture. Life is a mix of subjective and objective elements. To deny one is not necessarily to deny the other. This is most certainly a fascinating paradox of life that I am glad Pro instigated a debate for.

I look forward to Pro's response.
Round 2
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#3
I will start by adding two more arguments, and then I will rebut my opponent.

Argument 1: The law of non-contradiction

The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle in logic. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. For example, if a statement claims "the sky is blue," its contradictory statement "the sky is not blue" cannot also be true at the same time. This principle is crucial for rational thought and argumentation.
In this context, subjective morality cannot co-exist with objective morality since both ideologies present two simultaneously contradicting standards that work against one another, as subjective morality states that right and wrong are a matter of perception, experience, and ultimately one's viewpoint. In contrast, objective morality is an ideology that does not allow for any form of leeway. When it says something is wrong, it is stating so as a fact.
For instance, if you were asked, "Would you steal an apple if you were hungry, and are you wrong for doing so?" subjective morality would view such a question as flexible and dependent on the situation and how it is viewed. Objective morality, instead, would say it is one or the other, with no room for argument. Therefore, due to the law of non-contradiction, both ideologies cannot be true, and since there is no evidence for objective morality but ample evidence for subjective morality, the latter holds more weight.

Argument 2: Morality does not exist objectively

As this debate is centered on the question of whether there is a right or wrong way to live life, morality is perhaps the epicenter of the discussion. Thus, it is important that we understand the nature of morality. Morality itself is not a physical object or something that can be observed under a microscope. It is a concept that exists solely for the purpose of justifying our actions to ourselves and others.
As such, it is impossible to say morality is objective because you cannot apply a single concept of moral findings and say every human is subject to that concept's jurisdiction. We can perhaps have a universal understanding—i.e., the meaning of the words and what is described as moral and immoral or right and wrong—but universal agreement on such matters is not possible.
Without undivided agreement on matters of morality, any attempt to apply moral concepts to all people on this earth is a doomed experiment, as people will both misunderstand and reject such attempts. Furthermore, anything that exists solely dependent on the thoughts and feelings of others cannot, by its very nature, be objective. After all, facts do not care about opinions. A cell in the human body does not cease to exist just because someone fails to grasp the idea of biology. The same cannot be said for morality.

Rebuttal 1: Knowledge does not begin with senses

Con admits to subjective elements of morality but then tries to argue that there are objective elements to life such as needing air and claiming that something outside of us gives us knowledge and that experience cannot be subjective. However, this argument fails for two reasons.
  • Experience is always subjective: Where you are born, who your parents are, the status of your health as you grow up, and the schooling you receive all determine your understanding of the world and everything around us, as I said in round 1. We all have different experiences growing up, and therefore all experiences are subjective by nature.
  • Needing air is a physical phenomenon, not a moral one: The debate is whether there is a right and wrong way to live life. The physical requirement of needing air is not an indication of shared moral principles or understanding of right and wrong, nor does it establish said understanding in an objective sense.
Rebuttal 2: The concept of “true morality” is a subjective concept.
  • Con contradicts themselves: Con starts their argument by admitting that their argument would be a hard sell because “morality is a product of reason, which is definitely more subjective in practice.” Yet, they continue to argue that “true morality comes from reason that is fed by experience caused by objective things.” Con simply cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they willingly admit that morality is a product of subjectivity, they cannot then say that their bases for “true morality” comes from an objective source since, by their own logic, their reasoning is subjective.
  • Con’s argument is hearsay: Con’s own argument for experience is anecdotal by nature. For example, they try to say that the fact they supposedly “saw” their neighbor push someone to the ground for a cookie to establish an “objective fact,” but facts are not derived from personal experience because no one can verify it actually happened. Therefore, my opponent’s argument works against themselves because personal experience is always a subjective concept that applies only to themselves and can therefore never be a fact.
Conclusion:
My opponent has simply failed to establish morality and by extension right and wrong ways to live life as a fact. Their arguments are in violation of the law of non-contradiction; they contradict themselves by admitting to the subjective nature of morality, and yet still argue that it is somehow objective. Meanwhile, we know for a fact morality is a concept rather than a factual entity or phenomenon. We also know it is a fallacy to argue morality can be both dependent on one's own thoughts and yet also be an external force that dictates our opinions. Morality, as well as right and wrong, are made up concepts that apply only to humans and not the world.

MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Con
#4
Thank you Americandebater24 for your response. 

I will firstly present an argument supporting my explanation of morality. Then I will rebut the two arguments of my opponent and present counter-rebuttals after that.

1.) Morality needs objectivity in order to be morality.

      Morality is action that is rightly reasoned and good. (As opposed to immorality which is action that is lacking reason and lacking due good) This means morality is fundamentally about good vs evil. This means there must be something by which we know what we are doing is good and rightly reasoned to. That is the whole point of moral principles. Such as do good and avoid evil. The end does not justify the means. These principles are the objective (because they are based on reality) aspect to morality and without them there is nothing by which we can say an action is good or evil and therefore we cannot even speak of true morality without them.

       I do not deny that there are subjective elements in morality. I am saying morality as a whole must have objective and subjective elements or else we are not speaking of morality anymore.

2.) Rebuttals
In this context, subjective morality cannot co-exist with objective morality since both ideologies present two simultaneously contradicting standards that work against one another, as subjective morality states that right and wrong are a matter of perception, experience, and ultimately one's viewpoint. In contrast, objective morality is an ideology that does not allow for any form of leeway. When it says something is wrong, it is stating so as a fact.
This statement is only looking at morality as if it is either 100 percent subjective vs 100 percent objective. Pro has totally disregarded that morality can be a mix of both. Subjectiveness and objectiveness are not fundamentally opposed. Like I said in R1 there is you and there is what is not you. 

It is a concept that exists solely for the purpose of justifying our actions to ourselves and others.
I totally disagree with this definition/description of morality. Morality is not a question of justifying, it is a question of good vs evil.

 We can perhaps have a universal understanding—i.e., the meaning of the words and what is described as moral and immoral or right and wrong—but universal agreement on such matters is not possible.
Just because some people refuse to acknowledge moral principles does not take away their universal application. I'm also sure the murderer in the courtroom would happily deny a moral principle to get out of going to jail and paying a lot of money.

3.) Counter-rebuttals

Rebuttal 1: Knowledge does not begin with senses
Knowledge most certainly does begin with your senses. One who is devoid of his senses cannot know. Where else does knowledge start?

Con admits to subjective elements of morality but then tries to argue that there are objective elements to life such as needing air and claiming that something outside of us gives us knowledge and that experience cannot be subjective. However, this argument fails for two reasons.
  • Experience is always subjective: Where you are born, who your parents are, the status of your health as you grow up, and the schooling you receive all determine your understanding of the world and everything around us, as I said in round 1. We all have different experiences growing up, and therefore all experiences are subjective by nature.
  • Needing air is a physical phenomenon, not a moral one: The debate is whether there is a right and wrong way to live life. The physical requirement of needing air is not an indication of shared moral principles or understanding of right and wrong, nor does it establish said understanding in an objective sense.
Firstly, I did not say that experience is objective, I said experience is caused by something objective. I gave the example of air to show this. Pro misunderstood my argument. I did not present breathing air as a moral phenomenon.

Secondly, where you are born, who your parents are, the status of your health, etc... does not exclude that there can be objective things known through reason that is applied everywhere. One's material upbringing does not dictate whether the action one is doing is good or evil.

  • Con contradicts themselves: Con starts their argument by admitting that their argument would be a hard sell because “morality is a product of reason, which is definitely more subjective in practice.” Yet, they continue to argue that “true morality comes from reason that is fed by experience caused by objective things.” Con simply cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they willingly admit that morality is a product of subjectivity, they cannot then say that their bases for “true morality” comes from an objective source since, by their own logic, their reasoning is subjective.
  • Con’s argument is hearsay: Con’s own argument for experience is anecdotal by nature. For example, they try to say that the fact they supposedly “saw” their neighbor push someone to the ground for a cookie to establish an “objective fact,” but facts are not derived from personal experience because no one can verify it actually happened. Therefore, my opponent’s argument works against themselves because personal experience is always a subjective concept that applies only to themselves and can therefore never be a fact.
Pro has misunderstood what I am saying.
a.) I said morality is more subjective. That does not imply it is completely devoid of objectivity. I did not contradict myself as Pro would like. I was pointing out that morality, as Pro agrees, is a concept produced by reason and because of that there are more subjective elements. But that does not imply that there is no objectivity.

b.) The "story" is not anecdotal. I am presenting an example demonstrating what I said about morality. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone can verify the veracity of a story. There is no story, its an example. To give it any more than that is to profoundly miss the point. Pro did not address my reasoning, He got caught up on my example and misunderstood what it was for.

Conclusion
Pro has simply misunderstood my arguments and what I am saying. Morality needs objectivity in order to be morality. Pro's point that " it is a fallacy to argue morality can be both dependent on one's own thoughts and yet also be an external force that dictates our opinions." is a misunderstanding of morality. It is not dependent on one's own thoughts, rather it is a truth we discover. nor is it an external force but rather it is aspect based on nature that we discover.
Round 3
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#5
Since this is the final argument of the debate, I will choose to instead highlight the strengths of my argument and the weakness of my opponent's argument.

My arguments strengths:
  • Adherence to the governing rules of logic: My arguments have remained consistent. The right and wrong way to live a life cannot be universally defined because they are ultimately subject to unique circumstances. Not only does this comply with the law of non-contradiction, but Con actually conceded this point to a limited degree by acknowledging that life can be subjective.
  • Backed up by sources: Not only did I provide a biological source to prove that human subjectivity is not just rooted in philosophy, but a medical fact, I also added the words of a known believer in God, whose ideology would be objective, admitting that truth itself can be a subjective concept. And with all due respect to Con, what evidence did they provide? “My neighbor tripped someone and stole a cookie.”
  • My arguments have more substance: In every argument I presented, I offered three paragraphs worth of arguments to consider. While I am not saying that I should get the vote just because my arguments may be longer, there is no denying that Con’s arguments have been significantly less about establishing their position and more about rebutting what I said.
Cons weakness:
  • No evidence: In any debate, it is important to back up what we are saying with not just words, but with data as well. Con has no such input. All they provided was a story, which is not evidence despite them claiming otherwise, and do nothing but say morality is objective because they believe so. That's not evidence.
  • Double standard: While Con claims that I have “misunderstood” their argument, the reality is that Con is supporting a double standard. They claim that morality is subjective to some extent, yet still argue it is objective, going so far as to say that morality “has” to be objective for morality to exist. You simply can't have your cake and eat it too. Morality is either objective or subjective; it can't be both at the same time.
  • Lack of awareness: Con consistently does not understand the contradiction in their own arguments, even when presented. For instance, they claim that their story “wasn't anecdotal,” despite asserting it as fact supported by nothing but their own words, and even saying verification isn't “required.” So, Con will make a claim, have no evidence, say it's true, and when challenged, deny its hearsay nature, despite previously claiming it to be a factual event.
Conclusion:
I presented the stronger argument in this debate, as I remained consistent and maintained a standard of evidence that my opponent sadly did not meet. They instead chose to argue based on opinion, unsubstantiated claims that they both could not prove and also contradicted by asserting that morality is something both subjective and non-subjective. This is essentially no different than saying I both need and don't need a heart to live. It clearly can't be both.

MAV99's avatar
MAV99
Con
#6
I would like to thank Pro for this debate.

I will present my main argument again because Pro has not actually answered it before addressing what Pro has said.

1.) My Main Argument again.

    Morality must have an objective aspect to it in order to be morality. I defined morality as "Morality is action that is rightly reasoned and good." as I showed in R2, showing that it focuses on essentially an action. Your actions, regardless if someone witnesses them are not, become objective facts by the very fact of doing them. So there has to be something objective or we are not talking about morality anymore. The reasoning one does in examining these actions allows them to discover the natural moral principles which are also themselves objective. Unless Pro wants to deny that the moral principle: "the end does not justify the means" is a product of reason that has been discovered as a moral principle based on nature (in which case, He would have had to prove that which he has not), then he is forced to admit objectivity in morality. There is no other logical way around it. 

2.) Rebuttals

 The right and wrong way to live a life cannot be universally defined because they are ultimately subject to unique circumstances. 
Culpability cannot be universally defined/attributed due to unique circumstances. Moral principles still apply regardless of circumstances. That is how we can know an action is good or evil.

  • Backed up by sources: Not only did I provide a biological source to prove that human subjectivity is not just rooted in philosophy, but a medical fact, I also added the words of a known believer in God, whose ideology would be objective, admitting that truth itself can be a subjective concept. And with all due respect to Con, what evidence did they provide? “My neighbor tripped someone and stole a cookie.”
I don't see why adding the words of a known believer who is contradicting himself helps you.

Also, The "My neighbor tripped someone and stole a cookie." was not presented as evidence in the argument. I do not know where Pro got such an idea unless they cannot tell the difference between an example to demonstrate an argument vs actual evidence. They are not the same thing.

  • My arguments have more substance: In every argument I presented, I offered three paragraphs worth of arguments to consider. While I am not saying that I should get the vote just because my arguments may be longer, there is no denying that Con’s arguments have been significantly less about establishing their position and more about rebutting what I said.
First off it is definitely debatable that my arguments are less substantive than Pro's. Just because I stick to the point in order to demonstrate what I am saying and because I don't want to waste the time and energy of my reader does not make my opponents arguments more substantive. At best, this statement shows a superficial understanding of what I was actually saying.

Cons weakness:
  • No evidence: In any debate, it is important to back up what we are saying with not just words, but with data as well. Con has no such input. All they provided was a story, which is not evidence despite them claiming otherwise, and do nothing but say morality is objective because they believe so. That's not evidence.
We are discussing morality. As you said here in R2: "Morality itself is not a physical object or something that can be observed under a microscope." and also: "It is a concept that exists solely for the purpose of..." (note here he said it is a concept). So where are you going to find evidence of morality itself? This is a question of reasoning. Not evidence. It is intellectually dishonest to demand evidence where evidence is not in question.

Also I never claimed my "story", which was an example, was evidence. Perhaps if Pro had given a citation to show that I said it was evidence, it might be easier to believe him.

I did not say morality was objective because I believe so. As I said in R1: "True morality comes from reason that is fed by experience which is caused by objective things. For example: I see my neighbor push somebody to the ground so that he could get the last cookie. I saw that; that is my experience. My neighbor did that; that is an objective fact. I understand there is a lack of due good in what my neighbor did and I see that while he wanted a good thing, the cookie, his means to getting it were evil. I can reason then to the conclusion: The end does not justify the means. I reasoned to a universal moral principle that always applies. That makes it an objective fact." I used reason and an EXAMPLE to demonstrate it.
I also said in R2: "Morality is action that is rightly reasoned and good. (As opposed to immorality which is action that is lacking reason and lacking due good) This means morality is fundamentally about good vs evil. This means there must be something by which we know what we are doing is good and rightly reasoned to. That is the whole point of moral principles. Such as do good and avoid evil. The end does not justify the means. These principles are the objective (because they are based on reality) aspect to morality and without them there is nothing by which we can say an action is good or evil and therefore we cannot even speak of true morality without them." Demonstrating it again, this time without an example since those seemed to confuse Pro.

  • Double standard: While Con claims that I have “misunderstood” their argument, the reality is that Con is supporting a double standard. They claim that morality is subjective to some extent, yet still argue it is objective, going so far as to say that morality “has” to be objective for morality to exist. You simply can't have your cake and eat it too. Morality is either objective or subjective; it can't be both at the same time.
Yes, It can be. And I demonstrated that here in R2: "Like I said in R1 there is you and there is what is not you." This is an axiom. It shows the fundamental relation between what you perceive and you. This shows they are not fundamentally opposed. Meaning they can exist in such things as morality which involves us and what is not us.
This has nothing to do with me having or eating the cake but actually recognizing that it is not mine, because I don't own morality but I have a lot to do with it. A concept Pro cannot seem to grasp.

  • Lack of awareness: Con consistently does not understand the contradiction in their own arguments, even when presented. For instance, they claim that their story “wasn't anecdotal,” despite asserting it as fact supported by nothing but their own words, and even saying verification isn't “required.” So, Con will make a claim, have no evidence, say it's true, and when challenged, deny its hearsay nature, despite previously claiming it to be a factual event.
Since Pro seems so intent on seeing my example as "evidence" I will make easier it easier for the reader to see what he is talking about. I said in R1:  "For example: I see my neighbor push somebody to the ground so that he could get the last cookie. I saw that; that is my experience. My neighbor did that; that is an objective fact." 

Pro has taken that "My neighbor did that; that is an objective fact." and taken it out of the context (hence changing the suppositio of what I am talking about and committing a non-sequitur fallacy) of it being an example. Making it so that he profoundly missed the point of what I am actually saying.

Conclusion
Pro simply does not seem to understand that subjectivity is of the person. Not of the things outside of him. We determine morality fundamentally based on what is outside of us. We are not the beginning of morality; instead we are its discoverers. While culpability, which is only a part of morality, is subjective, it is not the whole picture.

As I said in R1: "That subjective element is the capacity of the person to receive." and as well in R1: "While circumstances and the capacity of the individual can definitely change their culpability, circumstances and the capacity of the individual do not change morality of the action itself. That is why it is an act of kindness to tell someone that their actions are evil and explain to them why. You need not apply culpability when you do that. That is the true understanding of the phrase "do not judge." Showing how morality is fundamentally objective with a subjective part.