1) There are morals that are better than others. Not all, but some. If some tribe (like one in the Amazon Forest) believes that the parents have the right to starve to death their babies who were born with birth defects (I am talking about small things, like one more finger in their hand, for example), you don´t say: "oh, morals are subjective". You go save that kids life even if they object.

2) If the world is reaching overpopulation, why don't you kill yourself? I am not saying that you should do that, but it is easy for you to think that other people get to die or not be born so the world is fine, cause that doens't afect you directly.

PS - It is ironic, but telling other people that they shouldn't tell others how to do things, is telling others how to do (or not do) things.

So, even you believes some morality - subjective morality.  But it is still morality and you want everyone to think like you.

And there is nothing wrong with that (I disagree about subjective morality, but I have no problem with you trying to get me to see things your way).

1) That's exactly what I'm saying, because you were raised with those morals you think you are superior to their morals and you just go in and save the child. I'd go do the same thing but that doesn't mean I have the right to go and interfere with what they believe in. Also, following natural selection "laws," which is the argument I actually used so let's stick with that, there is absolutely no reason for me to go kill myself, it would also affect me directly so please stop assuming you know anything about me, your arguments would be more valid then.

2) You can find it ironic as much as you like, that doesn't change the fact that morals are subjective and based solely on one's childhood and the way they were raised/taught by their parents.

1) You don't think it is right, but you would do it anyway? Why? Because you know that you are right and they are wrong? That is having a superior morality, you just worded it in a different way.

2) There is one crucial problem with your way of thinking:

"All morality is subjective" --> the phrase "All morality is subjective" is a moral stance --> But, if the phrase is true, then "All morality is subjective" is also subjective --> Therefore, there are exceptions to the phrase --> Then, there are certains morals that are not subjective --> Your phrase is wrong. it contradicts itself.

1) No, only because I want to save the child, whether right or wrong I'd still do it. I don't get what's so hard to understand about doing something that may be wrong but I feel should be done. Another great example would be if I had a choice of my family over another million people. It'd be wrong to go save 3 people and let a million die, but I'd still do it without even thinking twice about it.

2)There is morality and there's pure simple fact. It's a fact that a person's morality is determined by the way they are raised, it's not my opinion, or moral stance as you call it.

I think you agree with me, but you won't accept the label.

1) Saving the child is a moral choice. There is no other way about it. Describe it anyway you want, in that case, you thought that the morality of that tribe was wrong and yours right, because how can you define wrong if you don't have a pre-made sense of right to see the difference?

You went there and because it is a serious matter (the life of a child), you saved the child, even if it meant disrespecting or confronting the tribe´s morality. Your morals was right and theirs was wrong, because you knnew that that child should not die because of a simple birth defect.

2) You say potato, I say potata. Yes, morality is something learned from our families, and some people change theirs (a little or alot) as they go on living. But, some of those morals (taught and learned) are right and some of those are wrong.

1) I never argued that I wasn't morally driven to save the child, in fact I admitted right to it. But what my moral is does not make it either right or wrong, I do it for my own comfort otherwise I'd face a serious cognitive dissonance problem if I just let the child die needlessly. My argument is that because I believe it, it doesn't make it the right choice, because in other people's eyes it might be outright wrong for me to intervene at all.

2) Just like there are no right or wrong opinions there are no right or wrong morals, your whole view of "right" is simply what is filtered by your own set of morals, which are based on the way you were raised. To others your set of morals can be just as wrong when looked through their own filters. Ultimately the trully "right" set of morals would be the ones that enable the human race as a whole to survive, and not just temporarily provide us with prosperity. Like I pointed out, our current "right" set of morals has set us on a collision path wwith a huge overpopulation problem.

"Just like there are no right or wrong opinions there are no right or wrong morals"

and

"Ultimately the trully "right" set of morals would be the ones...."

Tell me how one doesn´t oppose the other. You say no morals are right and in the next paragraph you are telling me what is right. I know you used "" but you still see it as the OBJECTIVE right way of thinking. And if you believe that all morals are subjective, then you can't say it.

Because no set of morals I have seen yet are right or wrong, and I doubt we'll ever see a set of morals that I define as "right," and I mean ever. Then again my definition of "right" is completely subjective and another person's definition of right could be completely different from my own.

I think we will never completely agree because of that. I believe some morality is subjective and some are objective.

You don't.

Now, here is a question: Do you believe that "right and wrong" does not exist or do you believe that us, humans, can never be sure if our "right and wrong" is the correct one?