Objective morality exists

My opponent brings up three rebuttals. " If you ask a group of off duty soldiers whether they think killing human beings is wrong, most of them would say that it is. However, lets say you had asked the same group of soldiers whether they thought killing the enemy is wrong, most of them would say no as the enemy is also trying to kill them. See how moral views change depending on the situation? It is not objective at all." The pertinent point is that morals are actually not changing subjectively. Objective morality does not mean that morality is the same over all situations, but that in a given situation the morality is objective. Moral truths are constant within the same circumstances but the circumstances in your example are different, and so the moral truths are different. My opponent presents the two situations: -The morality of whether it is immoral to kill someone who is trying to kill me. -The morality of whether it is bad to kill someone who is not trying to kill me These situations are different and so have different moral truths applicable to them. These moral truths can still be objective, they are just only relevant to certain situations. For example, 'do not kill' is not relevant in a situation of theft. Con appears to reason that different situations require different moral reasoning and this refutes the existence of objective morality. This is not the case; instead it highlights objective moral truths that are false. Con's example would only show that 'do not kill' is not an objective moral truth, it would not show that objective moral truths do not exist. To maintain the existence of correct objective moral truths, I would simply reason that I was mistaken that 'do not kill' is a moral truth. Instead, my reviewed reason would reveal these previously-unrealised objective moral truths: - It is not immoral for one to kill those who are attempting to kill him. - It is immoral for one to kill those who are not attempting to kill him. Thus objective morality is compatible. In his second rebuttal, Con misunderstands my objection to his argument. I am not saying that it is fallacious to use dictionary definitions, they can be actually be very useful for clarification of understanding. What IS fallacious is to base a whole argument upon a dictionary definition, as it takes a dictionary to be an unquestionable authority. It may not be fallacious for univocal terms such as 'shirt' because such words are not contested in any way. However it is a fallacy when used for equivocal terms such as 'love' (or 'morality' in this case). For example, it would not be a sound argument in a debate on 'what is love?' to simply point at a dictionary definition and thus conclude what love is. My opponent's third rebuttal is not valid, because the relevance of my mock interview is not dependent on the quality of reasoning given by my imaginary interviewees. Their reasoning behind their support/opposition of euthanasia does not need to be particularly veridical to illustrate my point. In contrast, you would only be able to prove that morality is subjective by reading peoples' minds if everyone had a correct but different view of morality. But this is not the case. To illustrate this, people have very different ideas of science and specific scientific concepts. By reading peoples' minds you would see this disparity. However, you would not then conclude that science is subjective. Instead you would conclude that some people have the correct knowledge of scientific concepts and the others are mistaken. It is the same with morality; reading peoples' minds would show a huge disparity in morality, but this would be because some people have true knowledge of moral truths and others are mistaken. Also, my knowledge of peoples' views on euthanasia are not based on mind-reading. Multiple people have simply told me what they believe about the issue; no mind-reading is required I assure you!