Morality is Objective

I'll just be doing some quote and respond."For example, by agreeing to have this debate in the first place, my opponent has implicitly accepted that doing so was the right thing to do – otherwise he would have done something which he did not think was the right thing to do, which is absurd."Not necessarily. Maybe I thought it was wrong to accept this debate, but I wanted to so I did. People do things that they consider to be wrong all the time. But anywho, this doesn't really matter in the big picture."Even those who attempt to embrace moral nihilism are asserting that nihilism should be chosen, and, as such, their position is self-defeating."This is another example of conflation. Embracing moral nihilism is not asserting that nihilism should be chosen, because nihilism says that it doesn't matter. Taking up the position of nihilism can't be self-defeating when nihilism claims there is no standard for victory or defeat."Any valid systems of morality, then, must promote life, and, specifically, human life (for humans are the only entities that can reason, so they alone can benefit from rational principles). What promotes human life? Since man is the rational animal (i.e. man’s distinguishing characteristic and primary means of survival is the use of reason), and since things have to act in accordance with their identities regardless of any feelings or whims one may have, it follows that a moral man must follow reason over all else."There's a major leap in logic here. Basically what we've got is:P1 Only living beings have moralsP2 Living beings use reason to stay aliveC1 Objective morals are founded on reasonThe problem with this is that the morality is still not objective. While it is true that without life there is no morality, there is nothing inherently morally wrong with a discontinuation of life, and therein, morals. Let's bring this over to the system I used in my first round of argumentation.The fact is that morality is dependent on life to exist, and life is dependent on reason to exist. If we're all being honest with ourselves, we know that this is true. Nobody could dispute this. However, the conclusion that we make based upon this is founded on a subjective preference towards the continuation of morality. There is no objective reason for why moral systems must remain in existence. The only reason to want moral systems to remain in existence is because you either have a bias towards it, or you have a bias towards what it gives us, which is life.My opponent also states that, "...to say that that which negates morality can be moral is self-defeating, so that which is anti-life (i.e. anti-reason) cannot be moral."The fact is that by destroying life you destroy the morality that it held, but that does not automatically prove that destroying morality is immoral. There needs to be an objective reason for why morality existing is better than morality not existing. You might say life is the reason, because morality allows life to continue, but there is no objective reason to want life over no life. The value placed on life has to do with the bias of the living towards it, not the actual objective fact of what living is. Living is the act of being alive. Dead is being dead. We place the value on one over the other, a value which is derived from our subjective viewpoint of things (i.e. the viewpoint of life).This is directly analogous to morality existing or not existing. The objective truth is that morality can exist or not exist. Nothing about the objective truth lends superiority to one over the other. Morality provides us a way to act, the lack of morality does not. The reason we value morality over no morality is that we exist with morality, we have a bias towards its existence. In our viewpoint, morality is central. We want it around. At the end of the day, that's from our perspective.I agree that destroying morality is morality-destroying, that much is obvious, that's the fact in the situation. Notice that the fact does not sound anything like my opponent's conclusion that ending morality would be immoral. That is because my opponent had to use something other than fact to get to that conclusion. He had to use his preference towards continuation of morality. Another entity could observe the same facts, and with a different preference (the opposite preference), conclude that it'd be neither moral nor immoral if morality ended. That being's preference would actually be a lack of a preference. Now, we might have trouble imagining such an entity. It probably wouldn't be any physical being; perhaps some sort of metaphysical being above our plane of existence, unconcerned with our concerns in such a way that seems totally alien. That might be hard to fathom, and such a thing might not exist, but the point is, the different perspective is there whether or not anything holds it, which makes the common perspective, the one my opponent holds, subjective. Any argument that the entity without preference is wrong would have to come from the perspective that morality ending would be wrong, which, again, is a subjective view, meaning the arguments are baseless as objective facts.My opponent is attacking this topic from a completely subjective point of view. He is assuming that life and morality are objectively worth pursuing. He fails to realize that the fact that we have life and morality is what motivates us to pursue it; we have a bias towards these things, we place value on them because they appeal to us on a subjective level.I won't be able to defend this particular round of arguments, so just remember that the BoP is on my opponent. If between my arguments and his arguments you're unsure, you're supposed to vote for me.Thanks for reading.