An objective morality can be discerned

As I said, the third round was supposed to be for rebutting the openings, but that's alright. Just do try to address my opening argument in this round along with this rebuttal if you're willing to (I set the length to 10000 characters, so you should have room). I should've been clearer in the initial posting; my apologies. I'm new to this site as well. Anyway, thanks for the response. Con claims that lion morality is "lion made" in the same vein that human morality is "man made." Is Con implying, then, that lions can create abstract and adaptable moral systems? I find this to be an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I would argue that lions base their "morality" on basic tenets, ingrained in the psyche, in the same way that humans do. This ingrained morality is semi-adaptable, but, unlike the relativistic morality proposed by Con, it has a base. The base isn't extremely relevant to lions, but the human version of that base is highly useful to humanity, as humans need to figure out the best actions for society at large, an unnatural dilemma that lions need not face. Back to lions: As evidence for a consistent rather than relative morality among lions, one can look to the infanticide committed by adult male lions when they take over a pride. If lions were intelligent enough to reason, adapting their morality to the situation, these alpha males would only kill the male cubs (to keep the females around for future mating) and would make sure to kill all adolescent males from the former alpha. They do not; their morality is not adaptable, it is innate. [1] Another thing to note is the lack of variability in "lion culture." If lion morality was "lion made" and relative from pride to pride, heavy variability would be expected between prides not associated with one another. Some variability is there, but, no matter what, lions follow some basic moral standards, as outlined in the above source provided. This parallels with humanity in that, despite the hefty geographic separation, there are many consistent taboos and rules across cultures. I provided a source for this in my opening argument. Relativism disregards the natural origin of humanity because, when it is in its normative form, anything goes. Naturally, humans do not let anything go in any context. Serial killers are almost always wrong, warlords are almost always wrong. This can be objectively known because morality serves a particular natural purpose. If someone tortures someone else to save 5 other people, the situation can be determined morally right or wrong objectively by using the definition that I propose combined with scientific methodology. The definition that I propose is objective, and it is supported by a mass of evidence, some of which I presented in my opening argument. I'm afraid Con has yet to provide any evidence supporting his/her position, particularly the position that torture in South Africa may be necessary for survival. Con brings up the fact that circumcision is accepted within some cultures, but I don't see how that is relevant. Circumcision and flaying are two entirely different things. Con's point about the "morality of the morality of eating peanut butter" doesn't make sense, as morality applies to actions, not to concepts. Morality, much like "car" or "grocery bag" cannot be moral or immoral under any theory that I'm aware of. What those objects are used for can be, of course, but morality doesn't apply to objects themselves. Furthermore, Con speaks of "laying out my entire morality", but I'm not proposing a deontological system. The system that I propose is consequentialist, based on some basic quasi-deontological tenants. This debate is about the validity of my proposed moral theory as evidence of an objective morality. Con's point about the murderers of Johannesburg ties into the issue that Con rose with my peanut butter and jumping jack examples. If literally any action can be moral or immoral, then the word "morality" is useless, much like how the word "car" would be useless if anything could be a car. Morality has a natural origin. No one can argue whether or not hands grasp objects and the means by which they do. As for the trolley problem, it would depend on who the people on the tracks are and on who the person being pushed is. I'm afraid that saying that it's impossible to be objective about this dilemma begins with the assumption that the morality that I propose is invalid; this is an assumption that Con has yet to support in the face of the evidence and arguments that I've provided. Again, if Con would be willing to argue against my opening and this rebuttal, that would be great, if not, that's understandable; I should've been more clear when laying out the format. 1. http://cbs.umn.edu...