Atheistic Objective Morality

Thanks Con for that response. I'm glad that Con agrees with my burden assessment and my definitions of morality and objectivity. Con has some refutations that need to be addressed. *Con's Refute* Con claims: "There is no way to objectively put euthanasia into the categories right or wrong because some people would believe that euthanasia is good, proper and just (as the definition of right states) and some people would believe that euthanasia is not good, proper and just." My response: Con ignores that the concepts of "good," "proper," and "just" can be reduced to principles of human homeostasis/well being, and Con also ignores that belief does not factor into this homeostasis at all. Sure, beliefs are subjective, but the terminally ill patient who is objectively suffering from an objective ailment is not achieving homeostasis and this does not lead to human well being...this is the reason they are seeking suicide. They are seeking an action that would lead them away from objective suffering/detriments to their homeostasis, irrespective of whether or not someone believes euthanasia is "proper." Con continues: "my opponent"s definition of morality is subjective, meaning that morality can be...determined only by my opponent"s subjective standards - which he fails to justify sufficiently." My response: There's nothing subjective about homeostasis, therefore well being. If Con wants to question why we should consider human well being when determining morality, then I must quote Sam Harris as he puts it beautifully: "Once again, we have hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question." http://www.reasonablefaith.org... If we don't consider human well being when speaking of moral right and wrong, what are we even talking about? I'm serious. How do we even consider morality without human/conscious animal well being? I argue that the principles of right and wrong are contingent on the well being of humans, and sans this consideration, right and wrong are useless, empty terms. Con then talks about beliefs: "A believer in intellectualism would argue that a moral action is an action that promotes and foster knowledge...a believe in welfarism would argue that a moral action is an action that economic well being or welfare" My response: We're not talking about beliefs, so, while it's nice to see who believes what, it seems rather irrelevant to whether or not morality means anything sans human well being or whether or not morality can be objective. Con continues: "My opponent needs to metaethically justify their framework to show that it is the objectively correct framework for determining whether or not an action is moral." My response: Ok. Actions that are moral can be reduced to actions that lead to well being. Actions that lead to well being must consider homeostasis, as true well being involves homeostasis. Homeostasis is an objective condition. Actions that are moral can be reduced to an objective condition. Morality can be objective. Metaethics is just the study of morality itself, and it seems tautological to ask me to metaethically define morality, when we're in a metaethical debate; I've defined morality with examples, analogies, and a claim that has yet to be refuted that all moral actions can be reduced to actions promoting homeostasis/well being. Con?