Principles of Morality

Further calling of names doesn't show your position to be correct. Actually addressing the arguments I stated would, provided there indeed happen to be any valid counterarguments, that is.

Name calling? LOL! Hardly,
MY initial statement to you laid it all out, you started projecting with the "name calling" and juvenile mockery.
I never call people names nor engage in "ad hominem" attacks, I merely discern the facts and lay them out - if you can't handle the truth, that's your problem little boy.

If morality is subjective it's all about whether I can reconcile an action with my inner disposition. However, since I will always reconcile my actions with my inner disposition subjective morality only describes the same type of reasoning that a moral nihilist would do.

Therefore the concepts of subjective morality and moral nihilism basically lead to the same result: The lack of belief in any external component in my decision making.

You've accurately described how everyone from moral nihilists to moral absolutists makes decisions. That is precisely what makes morality subjective. Nothing is intrinsically "good" or "bad", but rather it is simply a matter of what each individual opts to label it based on their inner disposition. Whether or not one believes in an "external component" in their decision making is inconsequential.

> That is precisely what makes morality subjective.

I think it is a lot more clear to say that morality in the normative sense does not exist. Instead only morality in the descriptive sense exists.

That is also what most Christians complain about: That moral relativism means that morality exists only in the descriptive sense but not in the normative sense which means it is only as binding as it can be enforced or communicated. It is not unconditionally binding like Christian morality.

Fair enough...I can't say I find any point of disagreement with that.