Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

I will try to keep my conclusion short, at this point all the arguments are already on the table, discussing them further is unnecessary. I will give some final responses and then summarize my position: Pro seems to change directions in their final entry by writing: "I have no clue what name tag belongs to the explanation of morality that I am offering but I am sure it is not objective or subjective. " Unfortunately, there is no hybrid option here. Morality is either subjective or objective. There is no third type that is non-objective but not quite subjective. I would therefore submit that Pro IS arguing for moral subjectivity, but has desperately tried to present some lesser form of it that does not require them to defend or explain subjectivity's nonsensical and unobserved consequences. It must be one or the other. If not, then I'm unsure what my opponent's argument even is. Pro also suggests that morality applies in insects, plants, and animals as well. This is a new claim that was not made in any of the previous rounds, and no examples or explanations were provided in support of it. My opponent agreed that all opinions must be equally acceptable for everyone to freely choose between them. However, they counter by claiming they never argued people were free to choose their own moral opinions. Allow me to quote their statement from round 1: "I would argue that therefore everybody has the freedom to decide whatever they see as good or bad" So which is it? Comparing moral choices to skin color choices is another false equivalence fallacy. I did not ask if Hitler's and Gandhi's actions were objectively good or bad. I asked if they were morally equal (neither good nor bad). Pro did not give an answer. Pro admits that their arguments are only a possible explanation and not proof. I will also admit that my arguments, in and of themselves, are only possible explanations as well. The key however, is exactly what Pro wrote: "I'd have to give predictions and go through a scientific process. " I will submit that a scientific process of making observations and drawing conclusions is possible, and it points to moral objectivity's likelihood. Let's conduct the experiment: If morality is objective, I predict we would see the following behavior: The existence of a universal good and bad gives people reason to debate, argue, and fight over which behaviors fall into which categories. There is a strong sense of how people "ought" to act at a basic level, and people are offended when this is violated. Strong beliefs will even cause people to force their beliefs on how all people "should" be on others. All human societies everywhere will sense these universal principles and attempt to form codes and legal systems around them, even though their individual applications will differ greatly. Behaviors that do not give strict evolutionary advantages still exist because they are considered "good" for some intangible reason. If morality is subjective, I predict we would see the following behavior: There is no such thing as good and bad, so there is no reason to disagree over human behavior. There is no sense that things "ought" to be any certain way. People's actions have no moral weight, they are only individual opinions no better or worse than any other. Debates about the nature of morality do not occur, because there is no nature of morality to even discuss. People operate under a "live and let live" philosophy, unless of course your opinions lead you to murder, in which case that would be ok too because everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Only behaviors that give strict evolutionary advantages exist. Which behaviors do we observe in the world? In conclusion, allow me to summarize my arguments: There is no such thing as morality that is non-objective but not quite subjective. There are only two choices: either "good" and "bad" actually exists, or it does not. My opponent is defending moral subjectivity, and as such must explain the frightening and ultimate consequences of that in order to be convincing. I submit they have failed to do so. It's inaccurate to say that subjective morality simply means everyone gets to decide good and bad for themselves. That is only a surface level understanding of it. Moral subjectivity means there is no good or bad. The deeper implications of what that actually means have already been presented, and pro has not successfully defended against them. Morality does not need some magical or divine source to be objective. Even if morality completely evolved, it can still be objective in the sense that all humans "ought" to act a certain way in order to survive better. Individual opinions are not the ultimate authority because certain things are still "better" or "worse" according to the objective standard of survival enhancement. If certain moral opinions cannot be freely chosen, then morality is not subjective. A possible explanation is not proof. We do not, in fact, find morals pointed only toward survival (why would a healthy person run into a burning hospital to save a cancer patient? Why do we not kill off people with dysfunctional reproductive systems? ). If that were truly the case, the world would look very different. You cannot extend your morals to other people under a subjective system, because that is contrary to the very definition of subjectivity. If such behavior cannot be defined as "subjective," then it must be defined as something else. (Remember, there are only two possible choices. .. ) The only opinion a subjectivist cannot hold is, "my opinions should be applied to others. " Because, again, this is an "ought" statement that violates subjectivity's definition. I submit, therefore, that morals most likely exist in an objective state. Thanks to my opponent, I had fun in this debate and I hope they did too. I would be happy to debate them again any time.