Still no answer? Ok.

And no I’m not a diehard utilitarian and I don’t know how you could have reached that conclusion.

But I’m not interested in continuing this anymore either. — khaled

G'day Khaled. See ya around. Nice talking to you. Sorry I misjudged your moral leanings.

I liked the suggestion of the opening post. A lot of criticism in later posts fail if you don't adhere to the letter of the teachings of Protagoras (as regaled by Plato) and of Kant, but to the spirit of it. And the application to moral dilemmas is clear, but not exclusive. I think people just argue because they hadn't thought of it first.

A little bit of folk wisdom mixed in:

Two man go to the village judge. "Your honour, Smith here does not want to pay me back the five bucks I lent him last Tuesday. He owes me that money!" "You're right", says the judge. Smith pipes up: "Yeah, but last year 'e borrowed me 'at, and 'e never give me back. I should keep the five bucks." "Son, you're right." Then the first complainer says: "But judge! We both can't be right!" The judge gets surprised, and then almost immediately, in delight: "You're right!"

Those who attacked the OP on Protagoras' terms, they failed to see that the solution to the dilemma works because the subjectivity can be flip-flopped. That's all. It's a simple as a hat.

Those who attacked the OP charging that he misunderstood Kant's dilemma are in fact plain wrong. Kant's dilemma is very simple. What Kant derives from it is completely and wholly unrelated to the Protagorian solution. Kant's treatment of his dilemma comes AFTER the presentation of the dilemma; and the Protagorian solution comes BEFORE the Kantian treatment, but AFTER the presentation of the dilemma. The critics are swashbuckling in the dark, fighting demons, not the insight of the Opening Post.