"But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word."
Morals are subjective, I realize that you've claimed to be speaking for yourself only; but with a comment such as that I have a hard time believing it.
>There's a field of study called Ethics that would disagree with you.
And the field called Metaethics with which I am referring to.
Before we go any further I would warn you against assuming anything that I am not saying; I admit to (drastically) simplifying my position in the form of a three word statement - in response to a statement of equal simplicity - but the way in which you are issuing a blanket (and hostile) denial of all of the implications not addressed does not imply that you are reading with the sort of charitable mindset required to update your opinion. With that said;
If you would actually like a source for my claim I would encourage you to read the metaethics sequence on lesswrong(1); many articles of which summarize the discussion (which I am actively avoiding by linking to it instead) presented by both sides regarding this topic.
I believe it would also be worthwhile for you to read the sequence on the difference between belief, and belief in belief (or the map and territory, respectively); for you appear to have an issue understanding that just because you have never heard of this viewpoint that it is novel, when rather it has been covered to a great extent - an extent to which you are clearly ignorant.
Also if you are attempting to conjure an argument around the definition of subjectivity please leave it at the door, it adds nothing to the discussion that couldn't be addressed with simple charitable reading.
That's a lot to read, so I'll take my time, but I'm always suspicious of arguments that can't be presented succinctly, for I have my own biases.
Would you care to at least elucidate on what you mean by "Morals are subjective" so I know if I even disagree with you?
I don't believe morals come from somewhere or that they can be made universally acceptable. I just think that between two humans, if one does something to the other, then the other will think they're justified in doing that same thing to the one. And when that happens, a third person watching the incident will adapt their behavior (or stay the same) according to the outcome of the interaction. Based on that, and using reason, we can find some core behavioral preferences that we can call morals, that passes the tests of doing and being done to, and of watching others do and reacting by changing one's behavior.
I'm not asking you to summarize the discussion, just give me the meat of the main point in one sentence, if you will. There are no morals because...? Or there can be no morals because...? Or people will never agree because...?
Morals are subjective, I realize that you've claimed to be speaking for yourself only; but with a comment such as that I have a hard time believing it.