Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

My apologies for leaving the impression that I blamed you for intentionally misleading the debate. I meant to say that that is what your argument seemed to do. I never meant to imply that you were somehow intentionally sabotaging the debate. Lets start by reacting on my opponents arguments. " Once the 10,000,000 tell the 5 "we are going to force you to stop raping because we don't like your behavior" they are appealing to an objective sense of good and bad that should be applied to other people. " I don't agree with what you are saying here. They are not appealing to an objective sense of good, they are appealing to 'their, being the 10.000.000' meaning of good. Which is not objective but subjective. They are not claiming that their opinion is objective, its just the majority. Also, analogies are meant to demonstrate certain aspects of a phenomenon. Of course rocks and oceans are not living beings. I only meant do demonstrate that simply because two opposites exist, that doesn't mean that they are not allowed to diminish the others existence. But I think this argument is getting somewhere in the next part of my opponents argument: " If there ever comes a time (god forbid) where most people suddenly decide torturing babies is fine, would it then be acceptable behavior?". Here we must be careful. The question asks: would it then be acceptable behavior? I am arguing: Objectively there is no acceptable of unacceptable behaviour. Again, my argument says that for the majority it is acceptable behaviour. I am not claiming that there is this thing called morality which is a product of man kind. It is not like morality becomes what the majority believes. Again, morality belongs to the person. So for the larger group yes, it is acceptable behaviour and for the rest it is not. If 100% of the population thinks it is acceptable behaviour, is it then in general acceptable? No. it is acceptable for that group. It is still possible that a new person is born that disagrees and again, he has the right to have that opinion. So when my opponent asks me: Do we really believe that? (pointing at the torturing of babies as being acceptable behaviour) My answer is: yes to those who have that opinion and no to those who don't. Again, again and again: I don't claim a central morality. Morality belongs to the person. Then to the next point: "Next, Pro asks me to provide examples of morals that are unlikely to evolve through Natural Selection. " I realised after reading that he did and I removed my counter arguments from my reply. As I said before, I had this thing typed out but deleted a big part. However, when writing my new argument, I forgot that I left my counter arguments out so here it is again. My apologies for this. Here is my explanation for some of the points that my opponent addressed. How do you explain that helping handicapped is considered morally good from a evolutionary standpoint. Well easy: All parents have this inherited love for their children, this is the love to protect them and make them live. Even though handicapped people might be regarded as 'bad for survival' that doesn't mean that we cannot love them. Simply dismissing people who are loved because they miss an arm or have a chromosome to much is not a society that is trying to maximise its state of well being. Obviously such behaviour would hurt a big majority of the population. Then there is this point about lying. Stating that we regard lying as morally bad is just simply wrong because we all tell our lies. Even if they are small. Not appreciating being lied TO is a different thing from having the opinion that lying is bad in general. People who claim that lying is always bad are just simply not being honest with themselves. So I simply don't agree that lying, manipulating and cheating is considered as morally bad. In some cases it is but not for everybody. Can I explain why someone would give great amounts of money to a charity even if he doesn't get a physical reward? Yes! Because it makes him feel good and it increases his social status. Societies where we disregard handicapped people are obviously unstable and chaotic societies. There is a good reason to appreciate handicapped people because to others, they are still people. Differentiating will obviously cause a major instability in functioning societies. And also, even though we seem to care for the weak, even here there is a limit. There are deceases that are so rare, that medication is too expensive and insurance companies or even governments will not finance them. What does this mean? there is a price tag on human life. I think it is estimated around 40.000$ a year. People will let you die if you are more expensive then that. So apparently, this philanthropic principle has limits too. In my opponents next point, my opponent again uses an argument that I refuted long ago: "However, the basic morals themselves are shockingly similar: " Again, I already explained why this is without having to fall back on moral objectivity. Again: because these morals are a product of survival. The fact that morals are more common doesn't mean that they are somehow objectively good. It just means the majority of the people think they are good. But that again, depends on the person. Then my opponent says: I believe morality's nature cannot be 100% proved either way. However, we can determine which case is most likely through observation and logic. Even though that is true. This still doesn't make morality objective. It just illustrates what is more common. My opponent makes a list of morals that seem common(and I agree that they are), and then finished with a wrong conclusion: Observations like this indicate that there are standards of behavior that are intrinsically "bad." You cannot jump from something that is common to that conclusion. It doesn't indicate that these are intrinsically bad, it indicates that these morals are intrinsically bad for survival. But again: there is no reason to believes that trying to survive is what are are ought to do. It is just what you can see. My opponents continues by referring to his idea of subjective morality which is again not the type of morality that I am talking about. I am not claiming that just because we have personal moral values, this implies that we cannot interfere with the morality of others. I imply that we have personal moral values and we can interfere with others if we want to. I am not arguing for subjectivity. So his whole argument about freedom and subjectivity is out of order. That is not what I am talking about. Since I have tried so badly explaining what I am trying to say. I will end my argument with the following thought experiment. Lets make a 'computer model' of blobs. We have both red and blue blobs. The red and blue blobs have different goals. Red blobs attack all the blobs that try to attack red blobs. Blue blobs try to attack and destroy everything. These blobs have personal morals(or goals). The red blobs think hurting is bad and destroy blobs who harm others. Blue blobs think it is good to destroy red blobs or blue blobs and do so. We start our simulation with 10000 red and 10000 blue(it should be the same number). We hit run and see what happens. Obviously, the red blobs are attacked by the blue blobs in a relation 1:1(at the beginning). The blue blobs are attacked by other blue blobs and also red blobs. Their ratio is almost 1:2. If you ask the question: after a while, which color blob is dominant? The obvious answer is red. The blue blobs are grossly outmatched and the red blobs protect each other. At the start of this experiment, both are equally well supported. Neither of them are right or wrong. But in the end we see that the red blobs stay alive better. We can further increase the complexity of this experiment by adding a duplication algorithm. After a certain time 't1' the blobs duplicate. Sometimes they create 1 new blob and sometimes 2. A blob can only do this once and after a certain time 't2' they are automatically destroyed. We also add a clause that a blob has a 75% likeliness to create a same colored blob and a 25% likeliness to get a opposite colored blob. Now lets ask the same question. After a while, which color is dominant? Well isn't it obvious that the red blob is in a gross majority? Does this mean that the red blobs are right and that their way of existing is better? NO! it means the red blob just has better ways to stay alive. But they don't have to. This comes down to the simple fact that most of what we see is that which is able to stay alive. Why don't we see people with no stomach? because they die. Does this mean that either of them is better? No, it means that one of them is better if you want to be here on this planet. But nothing forces you to still be here. That which is, is. It is more logical to have objective moral values if we seemed to have moral values that in no way seems logical. But I think I showed in my argument above that there are plenty of reasons to explain certain moral values from a survival point of view. Btw. If you do not believe my assumed results of these simulations I am possibly willing to write a code that actually does this experiment so we can see what happens.