There is no objective basis for morality.

I am posting a debate on this subject again because this is a subject that I am interested in and I am seeking thoughts and ideas on it. The last debates are here: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... My position is that an objective basis for morality has not been shown to exist; that judging or labeling an action as either moral or immoral is the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source. For this debate, the term "objective" will have the definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind. Since this topic could have a potentially wide range of discussion surrounding it, this debate will focus on only one aspect: killing another person. In addition to narrowing the focus to one aspect, I will frame the debate in the form of a specific scenario. My hope is that limiting the scope and framing the debate will provide ease and clarity and aid in a greater understanding of this topic. The scenario is as follows: I live completely alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island, no one ever visits the island, and there is never any communication with any other person. How I got to the island is irrelevant. I will never leave the island. The island and the surrounding ocean provide a wide variety of resources and I am able to use my reason and my ability to think to devise ways of turning theses resources into things that I need to live, e.g. I make tools for gathering and/or hunting food, I devise means of collecting and storing fresh water, I discover or construct shelter. Over time I have become so efficient at providing for my basic needs that I am able to devise ways to use the available resources to make my life better, i.e. provide luxuries and means of entertainment. I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself. One day, a man washes up on the beach. This man is alive but unconscious. I have never seen this man before and I have never had any interaction with this man and, due to being unconscious, the man has not interacted with me in any way. I walk up to this man and I kill him. I then continue with my day. The tide washes the body out to sea that evening and I never see the body again. I continue with my life as I did before the man washed up on the beach. My argument is that the action of killing the man on the beach was neither moral nor immoral and any classification of the action as either moral or immoral is not objective but is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source. Let me clarify that this debate is not about the existence of morality. I think that you have (and nearly everyone has ) a concept that you refer to as morality and that by using your particular concept of morality you make determinations about whether or not some action is moral or immoral. I am not arguing that morality does not exist, or that you do (or anyone does) not have a concept of morality, or that a particular concept of morality is correct or incorrect. Please do not attempt to change the argument to one about the existence of morality. Further, I am not making the argument that there is no such thing as a concept of morality that has an objective basis. It is possible that a concept of morality that has an objective basis exists but as I have not been provided evidence of this and every concept of morality that I have encountered has been shown to be subjective, I am arguing that whatever your concept of morality is, it is not objective but subjective i.e. the result of individual belief, or opinion, or preference, or some other non-objective source. The burden of proof will be shared. Con needs to provide a sustainable argument(s) that demonstrates that killing the man was objectively either moral or immoral. Pro needs to demonstrate that the arguments provided are not objective. The debate will consist of five rounds. Please provide your opening arguments in Round 1; Round 2 through 4 will be for rebuttals and additional arguments; and Round 5 will be for rebuttals and conclusions. Thank you for your participation.