Does good and evil exist?/Examining scenarios to prove statement

Rebuttals I appreciate that my opponent clarified my scenario. I brought up the possible motive of killing to explain how someone could still kill someone without being spurred by the scenario he was in"thus, person A would "feel like" killing person B at some point. To be consistent with my wording, however, I will concede that person A killed person B because he wanted to shoot someone for no particular or prior reason (mentally handicapped A). I had stated that people would not kill unless they had a good reason. The action of killing someone needlessly is what I was referring to as immoral. However, person A has no reason to think that his action is immoral because he is mentally incapacitated. Therefore, while the killing of B is an immoral act, person A would have no culpability because he had no distinction of morality in the first place. Some mentally handicapped individuals who have reasons for killing, but they too are not culpable because their reasons fall along the same line of reasoning. Therefore, I agree with my opponent that mentally handicapped people may not be able to discern right from wrong. The distinction that I am making is that we do have a standard which holds people in some regard so that they should not die unless there is a very good reason. There is something clouding the people"s judgment in distinguishing morality. The fact that we accept this shows that we do hold life in importance and to take it away so suddenly would be immoral. (I accept that mental health is more complex than what I make it to be in this argument, but I am assuming here that the attributed sources of decisions to the mentally handicapped people in these examples are very present illnesses that are impacting their thinking.) My opponent believes that for objective morality to exist, everyone must agree that a certain action is either always moral or always immoral. My opponent is describing (and is against) moral absolutism, which is defined as "the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act." [1] To say that there is something out there which decides whether there are entirely right or entirely wrong actions is beyond the scope of this debate (because that would mean that there is a god or force which determines this, and we would likely have to prove the existence of that first). However, I am arguing that people are aware of the difference between morality and immorality. For those that cannot distinguish right from wrong"especially in an extreme case where morality cannot be distinguished at all"one could say that they cannot make moral decisions. Some people who happen to be in peak mental condition may be considered to make immoral decisions. My opponent mentions this later in his/her rebuttal...Outsiders would consider it immoral,but for A it would be moral. It wouldn't be moral or immoral for everyone...If we are adhering to the scenario, then to person A the act of killing B would be morally permissible. This would be different from morally obligatory, which is defined as something that a person has to do to uphold a moral standard. Morally permissible acts are not immoral, but to not do them would not be any less moral than doing them. [2] Therefore, A may think that killing B is okay because he does not think that killing B is bad, but that does not mean that he must kill B. Because A does not think that there is any distinction between killing B and something else that is morally permissible, A is not acting towards any particular moral standard. I mentioned that people can potentially say that their actions are moral even if to others it isn"t, as my opponent described. However, I have also mentioned that people do have the choice to go against something that people may think is moral for the sake of being immoral. This person is in peak mental condition but goes against what people may say is moral. In others words, there are actions that are morally permissible, morally required, and morally forbidden. As an example of something morally required, say there is a person C who has a life-saving treatment that he could give away at any time. He is alone in a room with person D, who is dying of an illness which the treatment can completely cure. If he does not get the treatment, he will die. Suppose these two people are the only ones in the area for miles and miles, and there is ample food and water to live on. D is unable to move for some reason (say he is chained to the wall), and C can leave the room at any time. D begs for C to cure him, but C simply walks out of the room and never returns, leaving D to eventually die, thinking that D deserves not to live. This is a very primitive example, but the point I am trying to make is that C made a decision against saving D"s life (and let us suppose that C is not morally opposed to D in anyway; he just does not think that D is too weak of a person to live). He is going against what people would say is morally required to do, which is to save the person"s life. Also, people often to choose to do things that are not good for themselves (e.g. people smoking even though they know it is bad for them). This also makes the point that despite knowing they should or should not do something, people will take the opposite path. My example above shows that this can be possible for morality. ...i think most people would agree that we can see on TV that do people kill for trivial matters...Even then there is still a reason for the action. To the person who kills for trivial matters, those matters mean everything. My opponent acknowledges that people can kill without morally righteous reasons. If people are aware in their minds that there are things that are both immoral and moral, would that not mean they are straying away from things that are bad (or morally impermissible) and doing the things that are good (or morally permissible)? My opponent does believe in specifically moral relativism. To clarify (because my last link may have redirected to plain relativism instead), moral relativism regards differences in morality within different cultures. My opponent has argued for both descriptive moral relativism (people disagree about morality) and meta-ethical moral relativism (nobody is objectively right or wrong). [3] While I do agree that descriptive moral relativism exists, I am arguing that there is a standard that people have for their actions. Not having any standards at all can definitely be argued as a problem (see my last rebuttal about everyone killing one another as one example"no standards of human life, that is). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org..., [2] http://www.carroll.edu..., [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...