Objectify Morality

1. If you objectify anything, then it is objective. If it is not objective, then it was not objectified. You can attempt to objectify a person by their looks, however, if the reason why is subjective, then you have in fact given your opinion. The only way you can truly objectify a person by their looks is to give a reason in regards to body features in relation to one another based on the Golden Ratio. It seems like you have mistaken the difference between when someone is saying that he/she has objectified something to an actual factual basis that it is objective. Admittedly since this my first debate, I don't know if you technically said I won. 2. Wouldn't an ultimate certain credential be that humanity should continue to exist? 3. As I said in my first argument, EVERY action that we take from this moment on would ultimately lead to the continued existence of humanity or end it. I'm pretty sure this is the butterfly effect. To apply my logic to your example, will him taking the cookie be conducive to ending humanity or not? Yes, that can't be answered entirely, however, if we turn this around and ask how will humanity end, then we can ask how does that happen? Then we can ask how that previous happening happened and continue that chain of events to the point when he stole the cookie. 4. Objectification is the process of making every question into true or false, yes or no, or like a how a computer operates, zeros and ones. As being an autistic individual, I have the first-hand experience that a human can think like a computer. Since that implies an arbitrarily high number questions, the most efficient way of making it to the end is lumping them all together creating a variable in which you can use in an equation to define morality. 5. You definitely hit bulls-eye with that last question. That is the one question that plagued my entire life, the one question that took me almost 29 years to solve. I finally answered that question because I was able to ask a question even beyond that one. When does "being correct" become invalidated? My logic has determined that it's invalidated when there is no one left to answer it. 6. We have been dependent for so long for religion to answer our moral questions. Religion is a necessary institution for humanity, for it gives a shortcut explanation of why we do things. Because of an ego of a person, one cannot usually be a cold hard computer(it takes years of intense training). But even so, I do believe that Man can never find the truth of reality do without achieving enlightenment. In my opinion, any religion that leads to the end of humanity is wrong. I argue that since "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son," John 3:16, why would he tell anyone to end it? Even though I cannot say for certain other religions realize the same thing about their deities, I'm assuming that since most people aren't trying to kill each other is because they are aware that forming groups with a common ideology will help fortify institutions thus helping humanity continue to exist. The fact of the matter is that this hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to religion. One can even begin to say that killing in the name of God is wrong. Also keep in mind that there can be groups or individuals within the religion that may share a difference of opinion with the mass majority of the population of said religion. 7. If one man said the Earth is round and presented evidence as such, but millions of people said it was flat with their own rationale, which side would be morally correct and which should be morally correct?