Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring.
There is some crossover, that doesn't mean they are the same points and it certainly doesn't mean you refuted anything meaningful. Let's start by reposting my argument that you ignored a few pages ago:
Let's recap. You claimed morality only makes sense if it's objective. I then asked you for an objective standard to which you replied "love". I then asserted "well being" as the standard for morality and challenged you to objectively resolve this difference. You have been tap dancing ever since.
So let's just cut to the chase; there is no such thing as objective morality. You can have a moral system that objectively follows from the core standard, but the standard itself will always be chosen by the individual, making it necessarily subjective.
If you claim God as your moral standard, I can easily reject God as the standard and as I already have, assert something else. At that point we have two different moral systems. There is no objective resolution to this, not even a god because if one does exist and weighed in on which is correct, the answer would then be *subject to* his will.
First thing to notice here is that the part you zeroed in on so you could drop the rest if it was the very last line. Now if you actually read the post you would notice that the point was made in the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph was not necessary at all, it was just thrown in for emphasis and could have been done without the last sentence.
But that's the part you want to talk about.
And what do you want to discuss regarding this last sentence? A year old debate where you challenged my statement that "subject to" is "literally how you define subjective".
Well, of you look up subjective in the dictionary does it use the words "subject to"? No, so I guess you win on that one. That's not how the word is *literally* defined, so, congratulations on the "gotcha"?
For those of us who care about actual ideas however, the point of what I'm saying still stands. The *literal* definition of subjective is;
"based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts"
In other words, it's based on what the individual says instead of what's actual. Which is another of saying, *subject to* a person's say so.
This is pretty basic English.
So now would you like to address what I've said and substantiate the idea that live is an objective standard for morality, or do you have any other year olds debates you would like to rehash?