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

Thanks for the response, this has been a good debate so far. There are some puzzling contradictions in the first part of Pro's latest response. First, Pro says that morality is simply a function of popular majority. The 10,000,000 are right because they're the 10,000,000. Or, as Pro put it, the "their being the 10,000,000 meaning of good." But in the very next paragraph, they write: "It is not like morality becomes what the majority believes. Again, morality belongs to the person . . . If 100% of the population thinks it is acceptable behaviour, is it then in general acceptable? No." These are incompatible ideas. In fact, neither approach proves moral subjectivity at all. Let's break each of these ideas down further: Claim 1: "They are appealing to their being the 10,000,000" - This is a common logical fallacy called a tautology. A tautology occurs when the premise and conclusion are identical. Pro is arguing: The 10,000,000 are right because they appeal to being the majority. In other words, the 10,000,000 are right because they're the 10,000,000. All it means is a lot of people hold a certain opinion. But morality is found in how an opinion is enforced or applied. That is why I argue that the moment the 10,000,000 imprison the 5 rapists, they are appealing to objective morality. Subjective morality cannot extend beyond the individual. This is why subjectivists cannot interfere in the lives of others. The subjectivist says, "these are the morals I believe in, and so I will follow them." As soon he says, "these are the morals I believe in, and I think they should also apply to you," he is no longer operating under subjective morality. He is appealing to a standard of human behavior that somehow, intrinsically, should apply to others. In any case, Pro contradicts their own argument here when they wrote: "It is not like morality becomes what the majority believes. Again, morality belongs to the person." If morality belongs to each person, then it cannot extend to others. Claim 2: Torturing babies is still not acceptable in general, even if 100% of the population agrees with it " I'd like to quote Pro here: "If 100% of the population thinks it is acceptable behaviour, is it then in general acceptable? No." This is a confusing statement because it completely supports moral objectivity. How is it still unacceptable when everyone accepts it unless it's intrinsically "bad?" Pro tries to diminish this point by writing: "it is acceptable for that group." But that was not my question. I was not asking if everyone in a certain group accepted baby torturing, I was asking if everyone in the world - 100% of humans - accepted it. To pose the question with a more tangible scenario, would the Holocaust become a morally acceptable event if we all suddenly decided genocide is ok? If there is no true good or bad, then it wouldn't matter. But is that really the reality of our world? These are things the moral subjectivist must consider. Again, Pro's entire argument has only focused on one side of the coin so far. It seems attractive to say that everyone is entitled to their own moral opinions and call that moral subjectivity. But that's only half of the equation. You must draw that statement out to its logical conclusion and justify the results. For everyone to freely choose their own moral opinions, all opinions must be equally acceptable to choose - this is the very definition of "subjectivity." If all opinions are equal, then no opinion is any better or worse than another (no good or bad). If there is no good or bad, then Hitler's actions are morally equal to Gandhi's. I would ask my opponent to explain how that's possible, because it clearly makes no sense. Next, Pro shows how evolution could possibly explain the list of unlikely morals I provided. First, it's important to remember that a possible explanation is not proof. It's just that - one possible explanation among many. Next, even if morality did come completely from evolution, that doesn't mean it's subjective. Morality does not need some magical or supernatural source to be objective. If the morals we have today evolved to help us survive, then they can still be objective. They are the behaviors that are universally good to keep people alive (as evidenced by the fact that we are all living today rather than extinct). Morals of this flavor, in a sense, objectively declare "this is the universal way humans should live to have the best chance of survival." Of course, I agree that this depends on the assumption that humans ought to survive to begin with. Pro suggests this is doubtful. I submit that while both possibilities exist, human nature as observed over our entire history overwhelmingly indicates that we should, indeed, exist. There is virtually no evidence to the contrary. All this aside, I still submit it is unlikely evolution can account for all our morals. I will rebut Pro's individual explanations. Evolution favors survival enhancing traits. Dedicating scarce resources to handicapped people (I am referring to stone age societies, where morality would have started evolving) is bad for survival, and it would not have continued to evolve. No amount of love can overcome not having enough food to feed your tribe through winter. It's not even clear that love is beneficial to survival either. It helps in certain situations, but it can hinder in other situations, causing people to make illogical choices. Pacifism also cannot be explained by evolution, because clearly pacifism offers no survival advantages among warlike tribes. In addition, Pro makes multiple appeals to objective morality in order to support their own arguments! Pro writes: "People who claim that lying is always bad are just simply not being honest with themselves." Can you see the contradiction? People who claim lying is bad are not being honest (they are lying). So, Pro is suggesting it's bad to lie to yourself, even though lying is not always bad? Pro uses the very moral principle they're trying to refute in their own rebuttal! (This is another tautology fallacy, by the way). Next, Pro says "There is a good reason to appreciate handicapped people because to others, they are still people." This implies an objective principle as well - people have intrinsic worth. We should supposedly appreciate the handicapped simply because they are people. But if morality is subjective, then this argument makes no sense. This is what I was getting at when I said medical ethics can't be explained by evolution. If evolution drives us to survive in the most efficient way possible, why are there ethics in place to prevent doctors from experimenting on other humans or manipulating genetics to help us survive better? Such ethics only restrict us from reaching our full survival potential, which means they cannot be explained through evolution. My opponent continues to insist that they are not advocating a "type" of subjective morality that "implies that we cannot interfere with the morality of others." There are no "types" of subjective morality. As I've said before, the very definition of subjectivity means you cannot judge or interfere with others' choices. Subjective morality means that what works for you is equally as acceptable as what works for me. Pro cannot escape this. I have already explained the dangerous and unrealistic implications of this - it is the impossible hurdle moral subjectivity can never overcome. I am not even going to respond to the lengthy "blob" example, because it is almost totally irrelevant. Of course organisms with stronger survival practices will overcome others. It simply means one organism is stronger and another is weaker. I fail to see how this supports an argument about subjective morality.