what should i even say?

[Jacob(smooth)]

No, you're wrong. The moral act is to use a proportionate level of force. If you are trying to kill me I am morally justified in trying to kill you.

Justified, yes, but I hope we can both agree that the ideal way for that situation to end involves no loss of life, yes?

Indeed. But let us suppose for the sake of argument that I don't agree. That I feel the symmetry and "natural justice" of an eye for an eye makes my position the moral one, and that your position is naive and illogical, based on a concept of the value of life which has no basis in nature, where the cruel law of survival of the fittest rules supreme.

I've made a case, and so have you. Besides that your version of objective morality is the one you happen to believe, what makes it more objective than mine?

The above is a bald statement of opinion on what is moral, underpinned only by a fairly vague concept. But then, so was yours.

So what we have here is my belief on morality vs yours (subjective).

But there isn't a disagreement- again, I hope - on what the moral pinnacle is, in that situation. The existence of less moral possible solutions doesn't mean we're working from a subjective base, it just means we often fall short of the ideal on questions of morality. I'm not arguing that we don't have subjective values, just that there are objective truths to be known about the world we live in, and that because of this, all of those subjective opinions aren't equal. Some can just be wrong, and one can be more right than another.

But what MAKES them more or less right than each other? Is it the degree of correlation with the universal truths? Or is it simple consensus? You and I both believe in the sanctity of human life, but that merely means you and I agree, not that it's an objective truth. Amble over to the vegan discussion you'll find people convinced that the sanctity of animal life is an objective truth. Are they wrong? Or merely people who believe in different objective morality?