Objective Morality Does Not Exist

I extend my thanks to my opponent for participating in the debate. The following subdivided sections should address all of Con's point from the previous round.EvolutionI feel that bringing up evolution is relevant to my case in that, it can be made clear why each of us has the moral values that we do, and that it isn't because those actions are intrinsically immoral. Again, Con's syllogism states that I argue that morality is subjective because of evolution which does not reflect my argument, so I need not address it. The point of this is to demonstrate that human perspective and values are not the ultimate perspective and values. They vary widely among different forms of life.ConceptualizationLet us look more closely at the experiment regarding rhesus monkeys and morality that I briefly mentioned in my previous round. The conclusion of the experiment was that A majority of rhesus monkeys will consistently suffer hunger rather than secure food at the expense of electroshock to a conspecific [1]. During the experiment, the monkeys often refrain from pulling a chain to receive food if it caused apparent harm in a fellow monkey. Were the monkeys rationalizing the consequences of their actions, or merely responding to the empathetic feelings produced by their brains due to the association between the action of pulling the chain and the observation of harm to another? I think it can be reasonably doubted that the monkeys did not rationalize. ("Attempt to explain or justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate." [2]) This argument is addressed again in the next section.Intent and InstinctActions require and reflect intent. All intentions originate from the urges of a being's mind, whether the actions are rationalized or not. So, even when we humans, as being of a higher cognitive standing, make rationalize an action prior to acting, it stems from our base urges and emotions, and our rationalization is an assessment of that action based on our personal (i.e. subjective) values. If it is foreseen that an intended action will affect another being, then one rationalizes and considers the consequences of the action. The action will proceed, be aborted, or modified according to this assessment. No matter how one come to a verdict, it is based completely on personal values. If the action will bring harm to someone, one's feelings about causing harm to others (i.e. empathy) will affect the decision. Alternatively, the perceived repercussions may deter the action based on how one feels about them. In any case, feelings are involved, which defies the definition of objective.Since we, ourselves also act without rationalization and can deem those action moral or immoral, it is a bit of a stretch to say that morality is 100% conceptual. For example, a person it driving down the road and at the last second, spots an animal and swerves out of the way without conscious thought. A few moments later, another person see the animal (which is stupidly still in the roadway) and proceeds on course anyway without consciously thinking about it. One could call the first person more moral than the second, because these actions reflect their personal values, even though neither of them rationalized their actions.JustificationCon highlights that I conflated moral absolutism and objective morality, and then states, "[Moral absolutism is] true in all places and at all times - regardless of context." and then states that "killing without necessary justification is always wrong" is an example of objective morality. Justification, however, is not objective - it's an opinion of an observer.There exist situations in which an action, such as killing, is not deemed immoral. Such is when a being is acting on pure instinct or acting in self-defense, but all of these actions are exempt from morality because there was no *apparent* alternative action available. The action that occurs, such as killing, occurs objectively but is justified *subjectively* by this means. Justification is certainly influenced by personal feelings and opinions. For instance, to defend oneself in court, one can claim Self-Defense which is the Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances [3,4]. Even though many cases may seem quite obvious, there is no clear-cut, objective means of establishing this justification; it requires an opinionative evaluation of the circumstances. This violates the definition of objective.In regard to my example with the mosquito, thoughtlessly killing it is a reflection of the lack of value we place on its life, which differs based on personal opinion. There are many people who would deem killing that mosquito immoral, which reflects that it is based on personal feeling and opinions which defies the definition of objective. Con presents a few examples and, of course, the tornado example Con mentions is not an action that is result of intent (ignoring "act of God"), so that one can be ignored.Another example that Con presented regarded a shark. The male shark is indeed guilty of the objective act of rape, but the intent of the shark is not deemed immoral by justification. We, as a society, recognize this and it can been seen in the insanity defense. However, the former example is more clear-cut and readily agreed upon, but the later requires much assessment and valuation. Both are opinions.Misc.Con states:"Our compassion towards canines isn't because our primordial selves were raised by wolves. It's because they're relatively harmless and cute. We weren't raised by kittens and we get along with them just fine too."I did not mean that we were raised by wolves but rather that we evolved alongside one another, so there is a connection. Our preference for such animals (like cats) over others (such as snakes) is much stronger due to this. Everyone is different, which reflects personal, subjective values.ConclusionEvery moral judgment an individual makes is rooted in personal values and opinions, which indicates that morality is purely subjective. The reason that certain actions appear to have an objective moral value is simply because we are similar-minded beings. Objective morality does not exists because moral judgment is always influenced by personal opinions or feelings, which defies the definition of "objective".Sources[1] Lectric Law Library - http://www.lectlaw.com...[2] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] Shouse California Law Group - http://www.shouselaw.com...[4] Altruistic Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys - http://www.madisonmonkeys.com...