There Exists an Objective Morality

I would like to focus on the difference between objective morality and objective brain function and why morality is nto the equivalent of brian function, but instead brain function is the equivalent of, or if not the equivalent of, then extremely resembling, subjectivity. The definition of morality being used in this debate is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad or wrong. This is not the same thing as brain function. Brain function consists of two words so to define it I require to combine two separate definitions and shall do so now. Brain: The part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and other vertebrates, consisting of a soft, convoluted mass of gray and white matter and serving to control and coordinate the mental and physical actions. [1] Function: The kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution; the purpose for which something is designed or exists; role. [2] Now, to be very frank with my opponent, the elaborate debate put forward for the fact that the purpose for which the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and other vertebrates is designed or exists being objective does not assist in affirming the existence of an objective differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad or wrong. Thus this renders his entire round two debate relatively ineffective towards its intended purpose, which was to prove the existence of an objective morality. The fourth point raised intrigues me significantly. My opponent states that morality is a direct product of the human brain's thought function. He then continues and states that the distinction between good and bad does not exist outside the realm of the human mind. He concludes with the word for word statement 'it is a product of thought' and the 'it' was referring to morality. What interests me about this matter is that it does not support the objectivity of morality but rather its subjectivity. I shall define subjectivity now. Subjectivity: Judgement based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts. [3] The fact that morality is a product of thought merely supports that it is subjective as opposed to objective. My opponent agreed with me that morality is subjective in nature but merely said not all the time, yet failed to give an example whereby morality is objective. The fact that the human brain's structure and function have a role in determining one's moral views does not make it objective, it makes it subjective to the individual to whom which the brain belongs. My opponent never explained why the human brain's function being objective means that the way in which we determine morality is not subjective. This is a failure on the pro's end of the debate. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...= THE LINK IS ONE PIECE BUT HAS BEEN SPLIT AT QUESTION MARK FOR INEXPLICABLE TECHNICAL DIFFICUlTY. My opponent failed to answer this question last time, and I hope he won't fail again, to address my challenge to him at the end of my round 2 debate: How would you motivate a non-empathetic atheist--who is convinced that they will not get caught--to refrain from a harmful action (such as torturing a child for fun)? And if you cannot do so, how can you posit the existence of objective moral truth (objective in the sense that it applies to everyone, and moral truth in the sense that it should provide at least some motivational force)?