Well here we are. You have taken me seriously and now, with the help of chatgpt, i will respond to you.

ChaptGPT: You should review ethical subjectivism versus ethical objectivism.

Me: How can multiple objective ethical viewpoints exist without proving ethics are subjective? You would have to prove, or substaniate in some way that a certain objective ethical framework stands above others. Seeing as how this remains a popular philosophical debate, im guessing you cant prove that.

ChatGPT: popular ethical frameworks that could be adopted by a person include: denotational ethics, utilitarism, virtue ethics, natural law theory, divine command theory, moral realism, human rights theory, contractualism, objectivism, moral absolutism, pragmatism, rule consequentialism, ethical intuitionism, platonism in ethics, the doctorine of double effect.

Me: if you are saying its a moral choice to adopt an ethical framework, and thats why each of these choices are not subjective in themselves, isnt that kind of obtuse and a semantic argument? Which is exactly what i would expect from a lemming. Because thats the way internet arguments are won.

My friend: Tee is right on this one.

You: Damn man you are right.

Kant didn't support Utilitarianism, he was in favour of categorical imperatives that were always true.