You literally used the phrase “moral standard” that literally means the standard is moral
In the sense you are interpreting the term within this sentence, it’s a tautology. The standard is moral according to its own self, because it is the very thing it is being judged against.
That’s not what we’re talking about.
You were appealing to a standard outside of it, which by definition means it is no longer the standard.
If A is my standard and B is your standard, and we want to resolve which standard is more moral, we need to invoke something else, standard C, so that A and B can be compared to it to see which one comes closer.
Without a third standard all we’re doing is saying A is closer to A, which makes A more moral. And you would no doubt claim that B is closer to B, making B more moral. This is not a means to a resolution, it’s just two individuals planting their feet on what they consider moral.
But if we do invoke C to judge A and B against, then C becomes our new moral standard. So A and B are useless.
And then of course someone can come along and claim D is the standard for morality. And on it goes…
This is why morality will always be subjective. There is no resolving this.
you claimed conflicting standards as the basis as to why morality is subjective, so that literally means the same as saying conflicting standards are moral.
To claim something is subjective is to claim that there is no right or wrong answer.
If there is no right or wrong answer then the statement A and B are both moral cannot follow, because you have to accept that there is a right answer as to whether either is moral to even assert it.
So no, that’s not literally what that means.