Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[The Grand Nudger]

So then you would be saying the actors belief of the action being best/correct/right does not correspond to the determination of the morality of the action. To which I respond that if this is the case you are no longer talking about a subjective morality and would be compelled to ask what is the determinate of the morality of the action?

No, that would be what -you- are saying.  Pitch more straw, it does't actually matter, as I've already explained.  

I think it is funny when you are inclined to throughout nominal definitions alone. Subjective morality means morality is subjective. Period. Does this definition have any implications? Or is it merely a tautology? If it is merely a tautology than you waste your time even saying it.

I think you waste your time pitching straw that will not rescue your claim.  We both waste time, for whatever reason.

If it has implication than what might they be? Might we say an implication of morality being subjective is not simply that it is performed by Subjects, but that that the quality of the act is determined subjectively at the time of action by the subjective actor? Then may we say the actor may engage in any number of actions? As a generality may it follow the various actions engaged in by the subjective actor shall be of a moral quality as determined by the subject at time of action?

You can say any number of those things and apply them as your own positions, you cannot take the liberty of imposing them upon others.  If you are arguing, it is only with yourself at this point. 

If the aforementioned is acceptable and we say the Subject engages in actions they believe to be best/correct/right than it follows that whatever actions the Subject engages in are to be morally determined as best/correct/right overall in accordance with the Subject's determination at the time of action. In such manner even known immoral actions are determined as moral.

I'm not going to humor you any further.  Come to the table or stop pretending to be interested.

If they do not appeal to a fictitious entity (as they need to appeal to a fictitious entity for subjective morality as well)

Reasserting that which you claim to be arguing does not actually turn the assertion into argumentation.  

 they only have one poorly formed choice which would be ethical utility. 

Can;t own your own statements from one post to the next?  What a fraud. 

However, ethical utility allows for any number of immoral actions and may be said to not suffice as a schema of morality anymore than subjective morality. So it would appear the day is not over yet.

More transparent objections.  It's too late, you scuttled your own bullshit and we'll get no farther if you can't own your own positions - and you refuse to allow others theirs.  You don;t actually need -any of us- to have this conversation with yourself Anima......Perhaps you think that the appeal to fiction is -better- than those other options you presented...that's a conversation we could have, but your original position is done, and you killed it.  I don't know why you continue to argue this with me, as I already given you every ludicrous claim for the sake of conversation. First there were two alternatives, then there's only one...I'm sure it won't be long until you call yourself a liar again by claiming that there are -no- other options...oh, oops...you already did.