Morals are objective.

Hello I will be arguing pro for this debate, that morals are indeed objective. I accept my opponents definition of the term objective meaning always and will now proceed to actually debate. My opponent points obviously wishes for us to take a look at the statement 'killing is always wrong' being false to show that morality does not hold constant across time but sometimes changes. because obviously killing cannot be wrong when hunting game to sustain you life and your families life. even if you are a vegetarian with bio-centrist views that killing animals is as wrong as killing people you likely accept that killing may be moral in an execution or maybe in self defense or if by accident (it was not wrong for me to step on that bug, i didn't see it) The problem is this is the fallacy of the strawman. http://www.nizkor.org... It is not a strawman because its something I didn't present as a case because that is perfectly understandable when I have presented nothing yet. it is a strawman because no one defending absolute morality would present it. the objective absolute moral truth concerning killing is not 'killing is wrong' but very specifically 'killing is wrong without a warranted cause' you would find that statement to hold true always. all the scenarios that would justify killing would not qualify for this. true some forms of killing that most would agree are wrong may not qualify either, such as 'killing that was warranted by your unbridled rage' warranted taken loosely as 'provocation' in this instance. so we would explore to further define cases like and discover ANOTHER ABSOLUTE TRUTH in morality! 'killing is wrong if done because you are angry with the person alone' Note that I add, 'alone' as you would likely be nazies shooting you and your self defense or patriotism justify this killing sense your at war. the killing that is wrong, is always wrong, objectively as my opponent has defined. with all 'circumstances' you think would negate what is thought of as a general truth, you would find if you just took the time to spell it out legalistically like someone destined to work for the government, there will always be a specific absolute truth that is true always. for example 'abortion is not immoral' may or may not be an absolute objective truth, but surely spelled out specifically for a given circumstance 'abortion is not immoral if both the baby and mother would die without doing it' for then by no definition would it really be thought of murder when its easy to see its a case were both could not be save. most agree that you are counted no less of a person if you save those you can and just let it go from your conscious those you couldn't. why should we doubt that morality is objective because what that objective morality is dose not translate into a statement small enough to put on a bumper sticker? should I doubt that the wildlife I see outside my home like whitetail deer are not objectively what they are because the scientific definition doesn't fit on my bumper sticker? Imagine someone once told you deer are creatures with four legs, small tail, and two antlers. you could then argue that sometimes those are elk, or gazelles, depending where you are. so though the definition may have been nice and small like we want, and was generally correct that term was so wide that even Moose would qualify as deer. So it wasn't absolutely true. but the deer that are deer are absolutely deer no less. Though I believe I have made my point; hear are some more examples "it is okay to cut of peoples arms" to "its okay to cut of a persons arm if done to save their life." "Adam it is wrong to eat of this tree" to "Adam its wrong to eat of this tree on your own will, if a bird eats of it and mistakes you for its young as you sleep with you mouth open you drooling Neanderthal, I will not condemn you for it." "it is wrong to steal that orange" to "it is wrong to steal that orange if you can live without doing so, and you must also not have cash to purchase it." "rape is wrong" to "rape is wrong for humans, animals don't know any better, and flowers cant reproduce unless a bee rapes them" that is all for my opening round and I hope my opponent does well or more specifically.......... "I hope my opponent does well at debating as long as its not enough to beat me, a very hard to earn victory is my highest desire" and mean that with absolute objectiveness.