Objective Morality

I will agree with you on one thing. "Right" and "Wrong" are both very vague terms that can mean many different things. They are constantly used interchangeably, and often inaccurately, with correct/incorrect, acceptable/unacceptable, justified/unjustified, and proper/improper. This is why I generally think in the terms of good and bad rather than right and wrong. I'm not sure what you consider right and wrong to mean in relation to morality, but I see them as meaning helpful and hurtful, respectively.Now, I should defend my own statement, as you have misrepresented its meaning. "There is still subjectivity in how we integrate morality into our society."By this, I am NOT referring to whether or not we accept morals, nor does that even apply to this debate. What we believe moral actions to be does not change what they actually are. In essence, that would be saying that people are always correct, and what we consider truth becomes truth. This, however, is not the case. It was once a widely held belief that the world is flat. Many people considered this true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, as we know, this was never actually true.What I was really referring to with this statement, is how we justify an act of immorality. It's a question that often comes up when discussing morality:Do the ends justify the means? In other words: Is a moral outcome reason enough for an immoral action? This is where there is subjectivity, as there is no concrete answer of yes or no. It depends on the outcome, on the action, and on all parties involved.Con states, "Perhaps we see murder as acceptable and surviving as a necessity. Would we murder and steal to help keep our families alive, because then we are doing what it takes to live. According to how we perceive morals now that is wrong, but in the situation it is not." This is an example of that question, albeit a vague example. There is a distinct difference between acceptable and moral. In this case, it is still immoral to murder and steal. But people have a moral obligation to provide for their families, especially in the case of children they have brought into the world. So the question is not whether it becomes moral to kill and steal, but rather, "Is the immorality of killing/stealing outweighed by the morality of keeping your own family alive, and therefore acceptable reason to behave immorally?". There is no solid answer to this. Some would say its reasonable justification, others would disagree. If it were only stealing, and no one was being killed, some who disagreed before might then agree. But this subjectivity is based on the acceptability of immoral action, not on morality itself. Morality in the Animal Kingdom Con also says that the (non-human) animal kingdom, and even some parts of the human world, see murder, rape, incest, and other acts of immoral nature acceptable. He then asks, since this is acceptable for them, what makes it wrong for us? Again, it's confusing acceptable with right and good. They find these things acceptable, but this is for one of two reasons. The first reason would be that they don't consider morals before taking action, in which case it is not a valid comparison as they don't care if it's wrong. The second reason is that they simply have poor moral compasses, which is to say they just don't know when they're doing something wrong. But then we must ask, "What is a moral compass, and what's it based on?". Moral Compass A moral compass is ones sense of right and wrong, and it's based on the guidelines by which we judge morality. Con believes there are no guidelines do not exist, but I disagree. Some say these guidelines come from God, others say they come from evolution. I myself believe it comes from evolution, but in truth, it doesn't matter where they come from, only that they are there. These guidelines are the conscience, the emotion of empathy, and the ability to consider morality. Basically, the conscience is the rulebook, while empathy and thought make up the learning process. When we consider an actions morality before taking said action, we think about whether or not it will hurt someone. We can then add it to our rulebook of conscience, and know that it is immoral. We may still perform the act if we feel it's necessary, but we still know it's immoral.On the other hand, we don't always consider morality before we do something. In this case, should that action hurt someone, we feel it through empathy. We feel bad, because we have done something bad, and again this can be added to our rulebook of conscience. We may try to reconcile, to remove the hurt we have caused, but that still doesn't change that causing the hurt in the first place was immoral.