An objective morality can be discerned

"Circumcision and flaying are two entirely different things." This is wrong. As an infant, the foreskin is actually attached to the head of the penis. Ergo, the surgical peeling of the foreskin back is literally flaying. This next argument could also be made for lions, but I will use dogs instead because there are more examples: What is a wild dog's innate morality? Why do you think that an animal's morality is only semi-adaptable? A wild dog can be exactly the same species as a tame one, and yet a wild dog would eat a human being if caught in their environment. I don't see the semi-adaptability in that. It seems to me to be fully adaptable. A child can be raised with the morals of a serial killer. There is no innate morality within him that is preventing him from murdering. When you mention the "lack of variability" in lion culture, this is not valid. If a group of 100 lions are raised in the same environments, then their morals will of course be similar. However, there are trainers who raise lions from cubs, and they don't have vicious relationships with those lions. Their most basic morals have been completely changed by their environment. The same could be said for killer whales in theme parks. Like humans, they are usually docile because of the environment that they are raised in. There are occasionally attacks, but the same could be said for human beings. Not because of their innate hatred for humans, but because they are provoked in some way. First of all, any action can be moral or immoral. This is why morality is relative. You may not think that eating peanut butter is a moral choice, but what about eating peanut butter next to somebody who is deathly allergic to peanut butter? What if you don't know that the person sitting next to you is deathly allergic to peanut butter? Are you now no longer obeying your morals, or do your morals change to fit the situation? These are all questions that apply to every action. Some actions cannot be defined as moral or immoral. Is murder worse than manslaughter? Why? Somebody still died. Does intent carry moral value, and if so, who decides that it does? Why do you think that some people in Johannesburg torture rape and murder everyone they want to? If they have the same innate moralities that I do, why don't I torture rape and murder everyone that I want to? The answer is simple. To paraphrase from Penn Jilette who doesn't take credit for this statement: I have tortured, raped and murdered everyone that I want to, and that number is zero. Why is it that the murderers and torturers of South Africa have a higher number? Is it more likely (and I am using occam's razor here) that they innately believe that murder is bad, but their upbringing overcomes this psychological capacity? Or is it more likely that they have no innate morals, and that their experiences in life are the building blocks of their morality? "That which is objective is not influenced by emotions." To decide the morality of an action is an emotional decision, not an intellectual one. Even if there were innate morals embedded in each person, they would be influenced by emotions. I will end with a question. Where do you think innate morals come from (You may say God, but we only have one more round left so...), and if they are innate in us because of evolution, then why have we not adopted an innate language to help us communicate, or an innate understanding of which plants are safe to eat and which are poisonous?