There are universal, objective moral values

It is already agreed that the human sense of morality facilitates our persistent survival. Can that case be finally closed? "...the universal objective moral value of thou shall not kill each other within the group; otherwise, there is no group" "...many are having a great moral time, while keeping their social groups alive by not killing each other" I agree that the fact that killing a group leads the group to non-existence. My contention is that there is no criteria to say whether it is morally good/correct for the group to persist. Burden of proof is on Pro. I might actually contend that according to your definition of morality (any ideas that promote life), life on this planet (especially humans) is bad for life. "Life outside the group, typically other species, is food to sustain the group -- bon appetite!" I don't understand the criteria (besides selfishness) on which you say it is good for a group to survive, then glamorize the mass slaughter of another or even all other groups (as food), then you hypocritically refer to the "Hitler mentality" as an "obtuse" misunderstanding of morality. This is the opposite of a "universal" morality. This is also evidence that life on this planet is a "bad" sort of life. Even if you ignore the direct suffering of our food, the fact that we consume resources en mass as a direct result of our flourishing (or rather, over-populating, for all you realists), humans have never been able to agree on a universal moral code. If it is a natural property of nature, why are we relentlessly killing each other? Why are we destroying the habitability of the planet? We took cows, genetically modified them, and grow and harvest them like a crop. The results are constant and endless suffering of the cows, as well as the number one source of greenhouse gas; the collective bovine fart. The number of suffering plants and animals is far greater than the likely temporary happiness of humans. And as I said, this same logic can be applied to all creatures on this planet. Life is detrimental to life. You seemed to dismiss my hypothetical question of why I shouldn't destroy the solar system by saying that "many are not suffering". "Many are not suffering" is the same as saying "some are suffering". I reassert that 0 is less than "some", and 0 is the amount of suffering that would result in the destruction of the solar system while "some" multiplied by infinity equals infinite suffering. Are you saying that happiness for some is worth the suffering of others? Again, on what criteria? "A typical Hitler mentality in conquest to destroy other social groups with some self-proclaim(ed) righteous dogma" Self-proclaimed righteous dogma is the source of every idea concerning morality. And yet there are still many differing ideas on which is correct. Again I ask what is the criteria? Even if you say the criteria is what ever most reduces suffering, why is that morally good? So far war is the only method of deciding who's "self-proclaimed dogma" is the correct one. This is hardly a universal, objective moral code. This is just a contest of strategy and resource control. Who ever has the biggest gun, is the one who is morally correct. Why is the persistence of life (at least on earth) a morally good goal?