Objective Morality

I would first like to clarify the statement my adversary requested. With my statements I have intended to show that how much a society knows determines morality, thus every society has its own personal sense of objective morality. I am trying to figure out how in essence we can debate this now because we are both essentially saying the same thing since pro changed his argument, we are just interpreting the word objective differently. Since this is the last round I will try and tackle pros main point as to why he believes morality is objective. If i go point by point, it will result in the same discussion due to us interpreting the word differently. If i however can break down the main point that he is stating, all his other arguments will be proven invalid. So I will focus on this one point due to this being the closing round. It will allow me to refute his claims by breaking down the foundation of them, and also allow me to offering a closing summary of my case. Pros main argument behind his reasoning is this (1) "Any action, at any given time, is going to result is one of three things. It will either help, hurt, or have no effect on, society. Whether or not we know which result that action will end in is irrelevant. If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity." Let us look one more time at what objective morality is. It is an universal or overall sense of right and wrong. Pro claims this himself. "That said, the argument I made in my last round does provide an overall, across the board, sense of right and wrong or good and bad". Pros main point essentially is saying, when something benefits a society it would be the objective moral action and anything that harms it would be immoral. Now matter how I try to look at this argument it is still flawed, and should be classified as subjective and not objective. The issue with this is what if someone commits an immoral act such as murder that does not offer progression of the society, but is still regarded as permissible by the society. Under Pros argument any immoral act could be considered moral, if it led to progression or benefited that society. So take society 1 which I had previously mentioned. If someone steals, kills , or rapes when it is only considered acceptable by the society(not progressing, advancing or establishing dominance),with this offering no benefit to the society that act would still be considered subjective morality. Pro may refute this with it has no specific effect on the society, but it will effect that persons family, or people who know him. When however that society sees this as acceptable, and it has effected someone negatively in turn, but offered no progression how then would be label this without subjective morality.If it was objective according to pros definition that specific act or immorality, would have to offer some type of benefit. We are then saying that specific act is directly relevant to the exact situation and time in which it happened. We are now delving so deep in semantics that I am about to drown of philosophy poisoning. I would address this with more example but I am in turn running out of space so I would like to offer my conclusion. Myself and Pro have both addressed this topic with valid points, and have tangled with semantics and word jousting. This has been a pleasant debate and probably the best one I have been a part of. I think the fundamental right between me and Pro is how we perceive the word objective I conclude that objective morality is impossible to have. That there is no way to have an overall sense of moral or immoral. That it is impossible to have and overall sense of good and bad. Morality will always be relevant to the specific situation in which it is put into question. Depending on the time period, location, experiences, culture, and knowledge that a society has morality must be directly correlating to those points. Pro has shown a valid argument as to why he thinks morality is objective, he believes that moral objectivity is based around progression or non progression. I in turn have shown how this can be construed as subjective depending on the circumstance at hand. I can not nor still see how there can be an overall sense of right and wrong. I turn the floor back to Pro and I have enjoyed every minute of this debate