An objective morality can be discerned

Okay, I'll be addressing Con's stance piece by piece. Thank you, Con, for your reply and I look forward to a fun discussion. One of Con's first statements is that morality is man made. Con later goes on to say that morality is society dependent (a relativistic stance). I have many objections to Con's stance here, but I'll expound upon a few. First, is Con implying that only humans have morality? It would seem that this is the case, given that Con is claiming that morality is "man made." The sources that I've provided in my opening argument heavily contradict Con's claim here. My second issue is with relativism in general. Relativism is an entirely useless stance for quite a few reasons: 1. It disregards the natural origin of humanity. 2. It makes morality, as a word, useless. I could start a society where flaying babies could be considered moral, and normative moral relativism would give that the go ahead. What if eating peanut butter is moral? What if doing 150 jumping jacks a day is moral? Moral relativism defines morality as the following when it is at its most extreme: Morality - Literally any set of actions, given the proper context. Since a purpose for morality can be discerned (through observing cross-species, cross-societal and historical patterns) I simply fail to see how relativism is sensible. And my third issue is with a contradiction in Con's position. First, Con lays down Kant's Categorical Imperative with the line "This is the idea that everyone should act in a way that if everybody acted that way, our system would function properly" Con goes on to contradict him/herself by claiming a relativistic position with the lines "Their morality has changed. It is not objective, because we can argue that their morality is bad for us. The morality of a law-abiding United States citizen is not objective because the murderers of Johannesburg can argue that the United States morals are equally bad for them." How can murder ever be justified under a system where everyone must act according to Kant's Categorical Imperative? Con asks what this morality that I propose would say about abortion. Let's return to my prior definition: Morality - A suite of otherregarding behaviors that promote group cohesion through altruism, reciprocity, cooperation, etc. What this definition says is "it depends." Research would need to be done to figure out how abortion impacts these metrics. And, luckily, my definition allows research to be done as it provides a basis for that research. It would probably be a complex issue with many possible cases that would need to be considered. Con goes on to talk about a "nearly-generic" morality, but I"m afraid I need clarification regarding that term. Con also seems to imply that murder, rape and torture are appropriate given the "right circumstances," but, what, then, is the goal? Surely not survival, as murder, rape and torture, I'm quite sure, do not assist in survival. This seems to run counter to the overarching human desire to survive. Those in South Africa could say that the U.S. is morally reprehensible, but, using the definition that I propose, that South African claim could be measured, just as easily as the color of the sky. Someone may say that the sky is red, but the wavelengths will say otherwise. I haven't provided any sources here as I feel that those in my opening should suffice to cover most of what I've said. I look forward to Con's response. Con should address my opening argument rather than my rebuttal, if that wasn't clear. The 4th round will be used to rebut the rebuttals.