objective morality does not exist!

Wow again, Justcallmetarzan does not understand the rules do not grant him a space to argue. He fails to see that it was not him to present the argument. It was suppose to be mattrodstrom, doing the debating for Justcallmetarzans side. The very fact that you see justcallmetarzan presenting an argument is against the very rules as it was not suppose to be him debating at all. So, for conduct I would urge you to vote him down. Second problem he has is he is calling my argument non-sequitur. Again by what objective standard am I obligated not to do this, but it really is very important to note that he is arguing that their is nothing at all wrong with what I am doing in any moral manner. So, it is showing why his argument fails. It is very relevant. Now, as a final part I will show you my syllogism which makes morals objective: But, before the syllogism I need to demonstrate that what we have decided to label morals actual does go back to human well being. Lets take a look at moral "institutions" Judaism has convinced people that the Jewish law is a moral code. The way they have done so, is by convincing people that a "fact on the ground" is that Yahweh will punish them(not beneficial for them) if they do something against the law and reward(beneficial to society) them if they do something against the law. Christianity extended these concepts to the afterlife, and other religions include reincarnation to get there moral principles followed. What these religions have done is changed these "facts on the ground" to change what appears to benefit our well being. The same could even be said of hitler, while the germans were looking for an excuse for the problems after WW!, it was not hard to convince them that the "fact on the ground" was that the Jews were harming their well being as a society. So, now that we see morality has a direct link to human well being, onto the syllogisms: Here are the syllogisms: P1:If something increases happiness and life span it is beneficial to human well being. P2:Not murdering people increases human happiness and life span. C1 Not murdering people is beneficial to human well being. P3:Something is morally good if it benefits human well being. c1=P3:not murdering people benefits human well being C2:not murdering people is morally good. The objective standard is human well being and we can measure that. Now, a couple things as I know justcallmetarzan will break the rules again and try to present an argument something he was not suppose to do. Neuroscience is now studying objective happiness. I will post a link to the google search results so you can take a look at the research. Now, onto what I have heard justcallmetarzan will argue. Well what if an actor accidently poisons someone or something while trying to feed them. Well, the overall result is immoral, but the immoral part is by the person who poisoned the food. The person was intending to help someone or something, so their action was beneficial to society as people trying to benefit society is helpful to society by definition. Now, another argument he may try to make would be well prove that life is something we should desire. Well, for anyone that doesn't find life important, I would implore you to go to a store, buy a gun ,stick it in your mouth and shoot yourself. What? You don't want to do that? Well, then guess what you know exactly why life is important.