Well, a real opinion and what gets paraded around as opinion are two very different things. An opinion is subjective, basically an "I like" statement. "This tastes good" "I liked the movie" "this is so beautiful", etc. Opinions can't be thought about or engaged in dialogue. When you do so on these matters, you no longer speak from an "I like" subjectivity, but become objective insofar as you consider other points of view on the matter without staying locked to your own, assuming that you even have one.
And this is why discourse, especially moral or political, is broken in western society. People engage in discourses over opinions as though that were thought. They give dignity to "debate" as though it were really coming to grips with the difficult and "intellectual" things in life. Debate doesn't even require any skill in discourse anymore because people are so unthinking about their untouchable opinions that any twisted logic satisfies them with the illusion of being right.
Since most people consider these sorts of things to be "opinions", I voted yes, despite the fact that a true opinion isn't something that can be held in question.
To just provide some guidance away from this illness, morality is never a question of the general. It is always individual to each instant. There is no rule or standard, and this absence gives morality its dignity. Society may justify its laws on its morality, but law is there for structure, control, stability, a cog and nothing more. Belief in a god of judgment is simply an even more efficient means of control, causing the masses to self-regulate out of fear of a fabricated beyond. True morality is a matter of choosing to come to the aid of another being out of your own surplus, simply out of respect for that being's existence. A million things enter into these situations other than morality. When charity sees only the general, abstract humanity in its recipient, its giver gains a mastery over the bad things in life which of which he is already free but sees, the appropriation of the disadvantaged into the giver's magnanimity and system (eg. Xianity), an instant verification of "goodness", an instant verification of the giver's strength (cf. potlatch), social currency, etc. False morality is uncritical of itself and runs by fixed rules, lacking the strength to accept that morality is not absolute, but always a matter of excess, choice.
The individual means that each instant calls for different decisions. A simple example is murder, an action that is abhorred when applied to a member of the same society, but lauded when acted upon an enemy. Idiots will accuse a morality of the individual of being wishy washy, flip flopping, etc. These people are idiots because they are incapable of thinking in a moral situation, much less multiple ones.
Thought is by definition unfixed and active whereas opinion is static and unchanging. People make opinions where only thought applies, and this is why discourse has become so diseased.
