Moral Objectivism is superior to Moral Skepticism as a moral theory.

Righty-o, then, on to my support of objectivism. Anybody who is familiar with Ayn Rand will recognize the following argument as basically hers. Claim 1: Existence Exists. This claim asserts that something other than one's own consciousness exists. If it did not, consciousness itself would be an impossibility. That this principle is self-evident (its truth is given in perceptual experience) and is such that any attempt to refute it implicitly assumes it. This axiom entails metaphysical realism, the view that things are what they are independently of the mental states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual people. Objectivism rejects the view that one could, in principle, be conscious exclusively and entirely of one's own consciousness. Objectivism holds that consciousness is not possible without the prior existence of something, external to consciousness, for consciousness to be conscious of; to be aware is to be aware of something. Claim 2: To be is to be something; a thing is what it is, and is nothing else. Objectivism regards identity as the essence of existence: "Existence is Identity." The corollary of this is the Law of Identity, which states that everything that exists has an identity, and that whatever has an identity is existent. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific identity, or nature, which consists of its attributes and the values of those attributes. Objectivism holds that all attributes (properties and characteristics) that constitute something's identity have specific values, so that each exists in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means specificity. Therefore, according to Objectivism, everything that exists has a specific, finite nature. Something with a specific, finite nature cannot both have and not have the same attribute; and an attribute of a something cannot both have and not have a single, specific value. Therefore, everything in reality is non-contradictory; though contradictions may be imagined in the mind, "a contradiction cannot be achieved within reality." Claim 3: Something can exist without anything being conscious of it. In addressing the fundamental relationship between consciousness and existence, Objectivism holds that existence takes primacy over consciousness; that existence exists independently of consciousness, and that therefore the essential function of consciousness is the grasp of existence. In this view, consciousness is fundamentally dependent upon existence. In contrast, there is the broad position that consciousness takes primacy over existence: that existence is in some sense fundamentally dependent upon consciousness; that consciousness can be prior to existence and that it somehow creates or shapes existence. Insofar as they have a specific identity, Objectivism holds that minds, thoughts, desires, intentions and so on do exist, but only as consequences of consciousness, which cannot come into existence without the prior existence of external objects to be conscious of. Because consciousness cannot precede existence, the universe as a whole cannot be the creation of a consciousness, nor itself be entirely mental. Claim 4: Since existence exists, and everything that exists is itself and nothing else, and something can exist without anything being conscious of it, it follows that if "right" and "wrong" exist, they exist in a finite, concrete manner. The logic works as follows: 1. existence exists 2. everything that exists is itself and is not anything else 3. therefore, everything that exists has, at any given moment, a finite character that can be quantified and described 4. if everything has a finite nature, then nothing can simultaneously be and not be something. 5. everything is either right, or it is wrong. 6. therefore, everything must be right or wrong.