Objective Morals and Values DO Exist

My opponent attempts to rebut my claims by saying "You cannot use society as a scape-goat for your morality for 2 reasons: 1. If only 2 people were left on earth, you would have no society to learn from. 2. If society claims something to be "good", it must have had a reason to call it 'good.' What does it mean by the word 'good." Perhaps it is how it is worded, or rather, I simply fail to comprehend his question, but I do not exactly understand what he means if "two people were left on Earth, you would have no society to learn from." I assume that my opponent means to suggest that it is impossible for people to have created morals when there was no preexisting society from which to learn them. To address both points, I would like to provide my take on how morals were developed. I believe morals are based on the judgment of what is considered "beneficial," and are developed through geological influences. As the famous English philosopher and architect of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, argues, ideas should be judged on their usefulness. He defines what is "morally good" by what will benefit the most people in the best way possible (S1). For example, the Aztecs saw human sacrifice as something "morally good" because they believed that it would benefit their society. They believed that it would help their society attain the Gods' blessings, and help them get better crop yields and have suitable weather (S2). They thought that human sacrifice was good solely because they believed that their environment was controlled by divine beings who purposefully subjected people to harm if they did not follow their commands and pray to them. This can also be said about Greek Gods such as Zeus, who was believed to control the weather. Ancient Greeks believed that, if they did not pray to these Gods and give sacrifices, they would be subjected to their wrath.My opponent has confused part of my argument, saying "Germans believed killing Jews was a good thing, while other societies believed they were bad. You would say the murder of Jews is both good and bad, which is logically contradictory." I believe that the statement my opponent has made, in fact, supports my argument. He is practically questioning objective morals by asking that, if Germans believed that killing Jewish people were a good thing, why didn't the rest of the world see it as good too? If objective morals did exist, then the entire human population would either agree or disagree on the mass killing of Jewish people. However, while many Germans saw the killing of Jews as a positive thing, under the impression that the Jewish people were the ones who created the financial struggle in Germany following World War One, a vast majority of the Western world scolded this. Millions of Americans desired to wage war on these disgusting acts of murder and torture.My opponent attempts to refute my arguments furthermore by suggesting that "You cannot learn how to tie your shoes unless the source you learned it from knew for certain, how exactly how to tie a shoe. If you claim it is subjective, well, there is only 1 way to tie your shoes, that is, the right way." He compares tied shoelaces to objective morals, and compares the method(s) of tying shoes to be a moral. Admittedly, I am confused. Yes, this is supposed to be a metaphor, but he uses shoes and the method of tying shoes, both man-made products, to explain objective morals, a standard that is supposedly made by a divine power. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to provide any evidence of objective morals beyond comparisons and baseless statements.In conclusion, humans do not have objective morals "pre-programmed" in our brains. Morals are developed through cultural relativism and geological influences. This is apparent by basic observations in different societies, such as the Aztecs who saw human sacrifice as being morally good because it was believed to benefit the greatest amount of people. If all humans did, however, have objective morals, every member of our species would share the same moral values. We wouldn't have wars because of religious conflicts such as the Crusades because everyone would objectively be praising the same God, we wouldn't have political parties because everyone would be supporting similar political ideals, we wouldn't have pro-life and pro-choice disputes because we'd all be pre-programmed on what's truly morally good, etc.Sources:S1) https://en.wikipedia.org...S2) http://anthropology.msu.edu...