Objective Morality

At this point, I find my previous arguments are all either invalid, or have been successfully refuted. As I told Con earlier, I have been back and forth on this very matter. I've spent the better part of the past two weeks contemplating whether morality is objective or subjective. I was going to explain my reasoning behind why morality is a development of evolution and then move on to why it's objective. In writing this I have again been back an forth on the matter. While I still feel morality is objective, it's not for the reason I originally thought.I apologize, as I have essentially wasted two full rounds of this debate, but I believe the following argument is solid proof of objective morality. Opposed to what I previously thought, the origins of morality are rather important to this debate. The very core of morality is within these origins, so I will begin anew there. The Evolution Basis for Morality: It is my belief that society is both a motivator and cause of morality, but the cultures and rules created by that society have no impact on what it is. Morality cannot exist without society, but in order to grow, any society needs morality. For a young society morality is relatively simple, but as any society grows, morality becomes increasingly complex and harder to determine. This is because the reasoning for a society is the desire to live, both well and safely. That desire is at the core of morality itself, for in a society, that which is beneficial to society would be right and good, and that which is detrimental to society would be wrong and bad. A moral action would then be one that is beneficial to society, while an immoral action would be one that is detrimental to it. Actions that have no effect on society would have no moral value.In a small society, human or non-human, it's fairly easy to determine if an act is moral or not as there are less members to consider benefit and detriment to. For instance, in a small human society, cultivating a garden or hunting to help feed the society, would be a moral act. In contrast, consuming food provided by society in order to live, without being a contributing member of that society in some way, would be nothing more than a drain on society, and would therefore be detrimental and immoral.Sadly, as society grows so do the number of variables to consider. When there are millions of members to consider, determining what is beneficial or detrimental to society becomes more difficult. But, in the end, whether or not we can determine that doesn't matter. If an action is taken, and it does actually benefit society, then that action, at that time, was a moral action. If that same action is tried at later date, but this time hurts society, then that action, at that time, was an immoral action.Any action, at any given time, is going to result is one of three things. It will either help, hurt, or have no effect on, society. Whether or not we know which result that action will end in is irrelevant. If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity.