Objective Morality Does Not Exist

Thank you for engaging in this debate with me. The entirely of my argument will be responding to my opponent's arguments in defense of my own.Firstly, Con states:"Immediately we can see that most of Pro's case is thrown out. We're arguing whether something on a conceptual level is objective or not. Conceptualizing is a higher order cognitive process. Only humans are capable of conceptualizing. Examples anything pre-human are not relevant."Even though moral objectiveness is a concept; it is not required of a being to understand the concept itself in order to be subject to a sense of morality. This would be akin to a bird flying without being aware the aerodynamics behind it. In fact, Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days. [1] This demonstrates that morality exists even if it is not grasped as a concept.Secondly, Con presents a syllogism which does not actually represent my argument, which is represented in the first premise: "If morality is emergent, then morality is relative"My initial argument demonstrates why we have the sense of morality that we do, and why it feels so universal and may seem objective [because we have the same basic brain]. I do not argue that evolution is the reason why morality is subjective. Within my argument, I explain how empathy and emotion are the source of morality. To go into it a little deeper, we have "mirror neurons" which are a special class of brain cells that fire not only when an individual performs an action, but also when the individual observes someone else make the same movement [2]. It is because of these mirror neurons that we can witness someone stub their toe and flinch in response. In essence, since the source of morality lies in our emotions, or "feelings", it fully defies the definition of "objective" as presented in Round 1.Thirdly, Con supplies a quote from one, Immanuel Kant. Within, Kant establishes the example maxim, "I will lie for personal benefit" paired with the act of lying, and then instructs us to imagine a world in which everyone followed this maxim. This is followed by a rational procedure, and as Con states, "According to Kant, morality is rational because it has an objective foundation in pure, practical reasoning."Although rational processes can determine the best course of action in regards to morality, it still requires the being's feelings and opinions to determine the desired conclusion of the rational process. One opinions and feelings and empathy determine the destination, and rationality can be employed to get us there. One refrains from lying about everything because of fear or dislike of repercussions or punishment, or because he feels that he wouldn't want to be lied to so he won't lie to others, which is a conclusion reached though empathy.Con continues:"A black widow eating its mate is not "cannibalism" in the sense that it was a rational choice. Nor is forcible animal copulation "rape". Intent is the very basic foundation of morality. It's the difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter. Animals and bugs that aren't capable of rational decision making act out of instinct. It's not comparable to a moral choice."An act of cannibalism is "An animal that feeds on flesh of its own species" [3], which is an objective event. Rape is also an objective event, which occurs when one participant is unwilling. These are what they are, regardless of intent. If they were objectively wrong, then these actions would be immoral, even if they are driven by instinct. Even we are slave to our instincts (albeit to a lesser degree) which drive our actions. I know that I could not bring myself to harm someone without necessity because my emotions and empathy prevent me.Fourthly, Con says:"The difference between killing a mosquito and puppy is pretty straightforward. A mosquito is potential disease-carrying parasite. It probably has little to no capacity to feel pain. A puppy is an adorable and relatively safe pet. It has the capacity to feel a much larger amount of pain."If killing is objectively wrong, then it is wrong. Killing the mosquito can be justified, which is founded in personal judgment. The notion that it probably has no capacity for pain is a poor justification; If one could kill a person without them feeling pain, is that justified? The mosquito's life is still terminated.Now I'll ask, why do we value the life of a puppy over that of a mosquito? It is because our sense of empathy has tuned to canines and similar creatures because of our mutual co-existence through evolution [4]. Heck, our empathy is so overarching that many of us display it with stuffed animals! Now the mosquito, on the other hand, is a threat as you stated. This leads to our aversion to them, which is driven by our feelings and instincts, as well. This further demonstrates the subjectiveness of morality.Con says:"Causing unnecessary pain is cruel. It's better to let something be - and live - if it doesn't bother you. These are rational conclusions."...and..." Emotions aren't necessarily subjective. Pain is an emotion. Burn anyone's face and you'll get an objectively painful reaction."The first conclusion is reached through empathy. We dislike pain, so our empathy deters us from causing it in others. Inversely, a person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which pertains to a lack of empathy for other people [5], would not find anything wrong with causing such unwarranted pain. While I fully agree with your statement, personally, it is merely opinion.Regarding the second statement, I would say that emotional states are objective. If someone is angry, then his brain is functioning in a way that pertains to anger (chemical processes) which is similar to the reception of pain. This motivates our actions towards others based on our opinions about these sensations, via empathy. We don't like pain, so we don't wish to inflict it on others (generally). Finally, regarding Con's final statement: if something is immoral in an objective sense, it would be so even without requiring something to compare it to. For instance, if a cup is made of metal, it is so without comparing it to something else. Saying the cup is large, on the other hand, requires a means of comparison. Morality requires a means of comparison.Sources[1] primates.com (content sourced from the NY Times) - http://www.primates.com...[2] BrainFacts.org - http://www.brainfacts.org...[3] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] National Geographic - http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[5] Psychology Today - https://www.psychologytoday.com...