The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

I'm sorry you had to forfeit. You can post your arguments in round 3 and rebuttals in round 4 and I will not post anything in round 4 to keep everything equal. So, moral sense theory claims morality in rooted in our emotions. Since I don't know my opponent's arguments, I will try to disprove the moral sense theory. 1) Emotions are not always objective Happiness, sadness, love or compassion aren't objective at all. We all feel them, but for different reasons. Not everyone loves animals, some mothers love their children more than others, some feel no compassion for murderers and so on. Most emotions are not objective and the ones that are objective (fear, anger, anxiety) don't influence our morality. And even this emotions are not constant. Serial killers for example usually don't experience fear. I think the moral sense theory explains morality very well, but I can't see how it proves that morality is objective. It's clear, I think, that compassion and love usually influence our moral views, but this emotions are not objective in the first place, so why would morality be objective? The only objective moral value we have is murder, that is and has always been considered immoral. A single moral value doesn't make all morality objective, and even murder is sometimes considered moral. The execution of serial killers is considered moral by many, while in any other context they would think killing a person is immoral. As long as context can influence morality, morality can't be objective. Animal rights are also a very complex topic where emotions are subjective. Some people love all animals, some people only love pets, some people feel nothing for animals and have no problem killing them (hunters), while some believe no animal should even be killed(mostly vegans and vegetarians) Take a look at the Denmark Dolphin Slaughter. Is it moral to kill them, even if it's for food? There are many moral standards involving emotions on which people from the same culture can't agree. 2) Not all morality in influenced by emotions. Sure, some moral values are influenced by love and compassion. However, when talking about prostitution or lying, emotions are not involved. Someone doesn't think prostitution is immoral because of his feelings. If murder is widely considered immoral because of love and compassion, prostitution is considered immoral because sex for money is not widely accepted. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about forced prostitution or sex slavery. I'm talking about prostitution as a job where women are doing it because they want or like to do it(also, I'm talking about legal prostitution, like in Amsterdam or Sydney ). Another example is pornography, that is widely considered immoral for no emotional reason. As long as nobody is forced to work is this domains, there are no emotions involved. Lying also doesn't have anything to do with emotions and proves that morality is taught, because children are taught not to lie. They are constantly reminded at school and at home that lying is wrong, so they believe it. You don't tell the truth because you of your love or compassion, you tell the truth because you were taught it is the moral thing to do. So, morality is not entirely dependent on emotions and even when it is, those emotions are not objective. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... http://www.psychologytoday.com... https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com...