The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

Introduction Thank you Dwint for being so patient with me. Once again, I'm sorry for having to skip my previous round. I'm not going to prove all morality is objective. There is some moral views that can be considered subjective and others that are objective. What I'm here to discuss right now, is just the morals that can be considered objective. In this round I will address how moral sense theory proves that a set of objective morals, indeed exist. Moral Sense Theory Moral Sense Theory states that just like sight, taste, touch or smell, a sense of morals also exists. We can sense right or wrong just like we can sense different colors. The objective moral code is altruistic in nature. There is a place with-in the code for rational self interest. This makes sense. If we don't show an interest in self preservation as individuals than we will fail as a society.Actions aren't approved of based on selfish reasons. Therefore something else is in play. Moral ideas also seem to arise spontaneously and aren't consciously thought about. We just intuitively know what is right and wrong. The reason it arises spontaneously is because a rational thought isn't a part of deciding morals. We sense morals.The MoralsThe first thing you should know about moral sense is this;"The moral sense is the source of justifying reasons but not exciting reasons" (Hutcheson).This means that we justify are actions based on our interpretation of the deeper moral code. A person for gay marriage has the same moral code as one against gay marriage. It's only the interpretation and application of the same moral code that makes it appear as if their moral code is different.Both guys believe marriage is special (The underlying moral code). What's different is one guy wants to protect the specialness by excluding some people. The other guy knows it's special and doesn't want to deny anyone the opportunity to participate in it. Just like 2 lawyers battling over the interpretation of the law. These 2 people fight over the interpretation and application of a deeper moral law.The objective moral sense can be confirmed by looking at a few facts. For example. The moral sense approves of "The general calm desire of the happiness of others."(Hutcheson).This is seperate and distinct from other moral passions, such as love and compassion.Morals come from gut reactions it appears. When challenged people have a really hard time explaining why they are against something, such as harmless consensual incest between brother and sister.(Haidt 2001) "Haidt's story appeals to evolution. He believes we are pre-programmed to respond to suffering with compassion, arrogance by subordinates with contempt, cheating with anger, and impurity with disgust, for example. These culturally fine-tuned affective responses are in turn distally explained by having been evolutionary "adaptations to long-standing threats and opportunities in social life" (Haidt 2012) " http://plato.stanford.edu... There are certain morals we all share and are objective there is just no way around it. We universally look at insubordination from subordinates with some contempt. We are disgusted by what we view as impure. We all think torturing a little baby for fun is wrong. Why are Morals Objective There is a few schools of thought here. I won't bother to mention them all. This could be a product of evolutionary group selection. Groups with altruistic members are more likely to survive than ones with selfish every man for himself types. There is also a possibility that Jung's theory of a collective unconscious is true. The collective unconscious could hold these objective morals that we somehow sense. Conclusion I hope I've laid out my argument clearly enough for everyone to grasp the concept of a set of objective morals that we some how sense. I thank my opponent for his extreme patience. I will get into rebuttals and counter rebuttals in the next round.