Morality is objective.

Thank you for your response, larztheloser (I gotta say, I feel like I'm unintentionally insulting you just by using your own screen name; how about just Larz?).Refuting Con's CaseCon's case for why morality is subjective centers around the fact that we cannot, at any point when deciding on which course of action would be preferable, split the fabric of time in two and bear witness to the results of both doing an action and not doing an action. Without anything to compare the results of not killing people, we cannot objectively say not killing people is good for those people's well-beings. Killing them may, in fact, be better for their well-beings than not killing them; we just don't know because we cannot possibly compare the two alternate realities.I must say, I've become a little scared of my opponent since reading this. He's basically admitted to being unable to discern if any moral action is good or bad simply because we can't compare results. Aside from the sociopathic nature of the argument, it has several other flaws:1. The entire method of "exclusion of the alternative" (or in other words "process of elimination") is unnecessary. It can help narrow your options when you're stuck on a difficult multiple choice problem, but it is never necessary.Con's example of "exclusion of the alternative" uses a lake and to discern whether or not it's a lake, we must first ask "Is it a bay?" But this is not the case. You can identify the properties this body of water has and then try to match them with the properties of an already-known concept. Crosschecking the properties against every alternative is unnecessary to discern the identity of this body of water. You don't have to first ask "Is it a bay" anymore than you have to first ask "Is it a mountain" or "Is it a duck".2. We have numerous historical examples of already-committed moral actions to discern which were good and bad with hindsight. Maybe if rape had not once occurred since the beginning of time, you could argue we don't know whether it's good or bad for the person being raped (and that's a pretty big "maybe"). But we now know unquestionably that people don't like being raped (as per the definition); we know their well-beings suffer for it, physically and mentally.3. Finally (and perhaps most importantly), his argument, curiously enough, doesn't even address the question of whether moral principles are objective or subjective. It merely states we cannot know the truth or falsity of moral claims, such as "Killing a child for sexual pleasure is morally wrong" (I know you know the answer to this, Larz). However, the mere fact we don't (or even can't) know the answers to certain questions doesn't put such answers in the realm of subjectivity.In other words, whether we know the answer or not is irrelevant: the answer is still objective.Defending my CaseP1: Some states of well-being are objectively better or worse than others.I thought it unnecessary to clarify this previously, but now it seems I must: you can think you are right, and still be wrong. Some people think the Earth is 6,000 years old and they truly believe this, but they are objectively wrong. Similarly, one can believe a course of action is morally right, and be wrong. One can set out to improve the lives of the human species, and fail.A religious zealot who drives a plane into a skyscraper may think he is doing a morally righteous thing, and be wrong. A hopeful and desperate cult member can commit suicide, believing his well-being will improve in the afterlife, and be wrong. King Leonidas may have believed chopping you into pieces on the battlefield was a noble act, and been wrong.The fact that people disagree about the answers to certain questions does not automatically mean those answers are subjective. You can believe with all of your might that three plus three is eight, and be objectively wrong. Just as you can believe killing people is morally right, and be wrong.My opponent states: "Take the golden rule for instance, treat others as you'd like to be treated. The alternative is to treat others however we feel they deserve. You can't look at that rule or alternative and say nobody who believes that is being rational."There is certainly more than one way to improve overall well-being, just as there is more than one way to harm overall well-being. Having several objectively true answers doesn't mean they are not objective.P2: Our behaviors and actions can effect the well-beings of ourselves and of other conscious creatures, for better or for worse.Again, my opponent plays the "people disagree" card. It's simply a weak objection to objective morality.He bombards me with a ton of moral questions (euthanasia, abortion, etc.), which I will not bother answering. These things are not the topic of the debate. Furthermore, I don't claim to have all the answers to every moral question; I simply realize the answers are objective. And as I've shown, answers can be objective even if we don't know the answers yet and even if people disagree what the answers are.P3: Morals are the principles concerned with these behaviors and actions which effect well-being.There seems to be no objection here.C: Therefore, some actions can be named objectively morally good or bad, depending on how they effect well-being.My opponent seems to think the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Maybe his objection would be justified if the second premise is missing and if the third premise was worded differently. However, the second premise states that our actions can effect others' well-beings, for better or for worse, while the third premise simply states morality concerns itself with these actions. To clarify, that simply is what morality is: the principles concerned with good and bad actions. This was the definition I offered in the instigation and the definition my opponent agreed to upon accepting this debate.The conclusion logically follows from these three premises, and I fail to understand how my opponent's insane analogy about him being text-based because the debate he is participating in is text-based applies to my argument's logic.