Objective morality does not exist

I would like to begin by addressing your first point, which is "the need to distinguish between rational and irrational people." This is truly an important distinction to make. Some people, such as those with psychological disorders, cannot be considered rational, but A vast majority of the population of the world can be. according to the merriam webster definition, rational can be described as: "Having the ability to reason or think about things clearly." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) It could be argued that a vast majority of the worlds population is rational. Within the "rational" part of the population, there are still many variations in the morals accepted by various cultures. The number of people that are irrational in any given society can be counted as only a minor factor, and thus all but forgotten when examining the moral beliefs of nations as a whole, as most do not suffer from mental disorders that affect their ability to make rational decisions. When this is taken into account, we see vast differences in the morals of the world. In your second point, you assert that acts such as terrorism are objectively immoral, as they cannot be justified. Terrorism is justified by those who participate as the most rational way to further their agenda. They are (usually) equipped to fight a full war, so they use guerrilla-like methods and scare tactics. While the murder of innocent civilians is seen by most western societies as immoral, other see it as a necessary act to achieve an end goal. (Disclaimer: I do NOT support terrorism in any way, shape, or form.) In your next argument, you state that rape is immoral, and justification of it is purely semantics. You did not provide any information showing that rape is objectively immoral, but merely began with the assumption. The immorality of rape can easily be dismissed as a subjective belief that is commonly held, though some would disagree with the moral. Allow me to add an example. Imagine we are at a restaurant. We have the option to order a hot dog, hamburger, or french fries. If we both order the french fries, is it true that they are better than the alternatives? No. This is just a belief that is held in common by the majority. The person at the next table may look over and see the french fries, and laugh at their inferiority to his hamburger. The final point made is the point of the tobacco smoker. You state that he is irrational for smoking, and does it despite the negative effects. This is ignoring factors such as addiction, which is: "...A primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors." There are countless factors that contribute to the gigantic smoking industry we see today, and it is not all willful ignorance, as often not smoking can seem worse to the smoker than continuing. Further arguments: While my time that was allocated for debate is nearly over, I would still like to present a few more arguments. The first argument I would like to present is the is-ought gap presented by David Hume. He describes his observations as follows: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark"d that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs, when of a sudden I am surpriz"d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, "tis necessary that it shou"d be observ"d and explain"d; and at the same time that a reason shou"d be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it." We can draw conclusions, such as "the homeless ought to have enough to survive," or "the young ought to help the elderly." We draw our conclusions from our observations. In order to state these things, we must assume that it is moral for the homeless to have enough to survive, and for the elderly to have assistance. We cannot say objectively that the homeless and the elderly should be helped, we assume it because it appears to be the best course of action according to our beliefs. Put simply, there is nothing in "is" to determine "ought." I would also like to point out the ability of two rational people to come to two rational conclusions that are on opposite sides in moral terms. Examine the question "is it moral to eat farm raised cows?" Person #1 may argue that A human"s well being is more important than the cows, while person #2 would argue that it is immoral to place a human life over a cow"s. Both of these people can come to their conclusions rationally, but they completely contradict each other.