objective morality does not exist!

Since I asked Izbo to correct his error in posting Round 1, and he declined to do so, stating (and I quote) "the rules stand as stated," I am not bound by any of what he has typed in Round 1, since I am not mattrodstrom. He had ample opportunity to correct this error, and has simply chosen not to do so. We will conduct this debate as though it were a normal debate.Therefore, as instigator, Izbo has the burden of providing a model of objective morality. But since he has chosen to post nothing in Round 1 other than some piddling details concerning a nonparty to the debate, he has simply given me an extra half-round.And as a last note, unrelated to any of the "rules" in the first round, the resolution as it stands is simply undebatable. Unless my opponent can show a reliable mechanism by which we both become aware of objective rules and are certain of their objectivity, an argument on either side is simply an appeal to ignorance if we are looking for "proof." But there is no problem if we read the resolution in its closest debatable form, "There is reason to believe objective morality does not exist." And since Con voiced no objections when he made the rule, we will continue as though this were the effective resolution.*********************************************************************************My opponent contends that objective morality exists. Without a model to go on, I will assume for the sake of argument that he isn't going to attempt to defend obviously non-meritorious positions like absolutism and thus will assume he is talking about objective moral pluralism, wherein an action may have one of several objective moral imports based on the factual antecedant circumstances.For example, on this view, killing someone may be objectively wrong, while killing an aggressor to protect an innocent may be morally right. This is in direct contrast to a rules-based approach which simply blanketly proscribes killing.But before we reach whatever specifics my opponent may introduce, there are some initial problems to overcome concerning an objective moral position. I'll bold the name by which I'll call the objection and briefly explain it below.1) Objection of infinite rulesAn objective moral system that is consequentialist, but lacks an entity that engages in moral reasoning (i.e. God, the Ideal Observer, etc...) must necessarily come with a set of infinite rules that describe every situation that possibly has import. Humans have a finitie memory capacity, and thus could not possibly be aware of all of these moral rules. Thus, the view is pragmatically useless, and since morality requires that it have pragmatic use, we can safely regard this view as nonexistant.2) Objection from transient existenceWithout agents capable of actions of moral import, moral rules cannot exist (indeed, what would they describe?). Humans did not always exist. Therefore, at some point in time, objective morality must have begun to exist. Humans could not have created objective morality. Therefore, either some other being must have created morality, or objective morality does not exist. There is no evidence for this other being, and therefore, we have no reason to assert that objective morality exists.3) Objection from teleologyThe entire function of engaging in moral reasoning and debate is so we might come to a conclusion concerning a proposition of moral import - this is a goal, and therefore, moral reasoning is a teleological activity. If objective morality exists, new moral propositions cannot be discovered, and thus moral reasoning has no goal. However, humans clearly engage in moral reasoning. Therefore, either humans are incorrect that they enage in moral reasoning, or objective moral principles do not exist.4) Objection from prescriptive conceptualizationPeople conceptualize moral rules as prescriptive (i.e. A ought to P in T). Objective morality is necessarily declarative (i.e. A P'ed in T, and it was wrong to do so). Even allowing for prospective declaration (i.e. If A were to P in T, it would be wrong to do so), the declaration that this is the case does not establish a prescription for an actor unless the actor has access to the declarative statement. Because people cannot gain access to a complete declarative about a moral proposition, people can never recieve a prescription concerning that proposition. Therefore, even if objective morality exists, people cannot use it, and therefore, have reason to behave as though it does not exist.5) Hume's Objection (the is-ought gap)Moral propositions impose an obligation on persons to comport with them. A system of objecive morality can only offer decscriptive statements concerning moral propositions (i.e. "is"-statements). The mere description of an action does not impose an "ought" upon any actors. Therefore, either objecive morality does not exist, or people are not bound by any objective moral principles, and the system is useless (and could hardly be called one of morality).6) Objection from unidentifiable principlesAn objective moral system must still have a criteria for determining what is good. However, the system would be unable to answer the question of whether that criteria is in and of itself good. Take for example, societal benefit. If "the good" = "societal benefit," then how does one determine if societal benefit is in fact good? Thus, either objective morality does not exist, or "objective" morality contains arbitrary value judgments, in which case it is not truly objective.7) Objection from Evolution (Joyce's Theory)Simpler explanations for moral reasoning, judgments, and behaviors exist in evolutionary theory (i.e. kin selection, mutualism, reciprocity, and group selection). These theories explain morality in much simpler terms that account for social relativity in fringe moral issues, and do not require the extra suppositions that objective systems do. Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe an evolutionary theory of morality.8) Objection of the unanswerable hypotheticalAn objective moral system can only describe the moral import of a proposition. A proposition can only be described if it has predicates. Hypothetical situations have no real predicates, and therefore an objective moral description of a hypothetical situation could be correct, but not actually exist. Nonexistent moral descriptions cannot deliver an imperative. However, people use hypothetical situations to engage in moral reasoning. Therefore, either these people are not morally reasoning, or they are reasoning by some other means, and it is more reasonable to believe objective morality does not exist.9) Objection (only to Con) from the missing vehicleAny objective moral system must contain a description of some mechanism by which people become aware of moral rules. Con has not put forth such a mechanism.10) Objection (only to Con) from lack of an entityAn objective moral system must claim to describe the moral import of the actions of all beings of a certain kind (i.e. humans). Such an entity cannot be a member of the described class of actors, else the view would not be objective (i.e. which individual that entity is would be arbitrary, and all views would be that entity's subjective view). Therefore, an entity exists who is not human, but knows the moral import of all possible actions of all humans. This entity further does not engage in moral reasoning, but simply reports the results of moral propositions. There is no evidence for this being, and therefore, it is more reasonable to assume this entity does not exist, and therefore, that there is no objective morality.*****************************************************************************These objections may not be terribly convincing in the abstract, but assuming Con decides to actually put forth a model that can be refuted, I will attempt to apply them to his model.Until such time, the resolution is clearly,AFFIRMED