Objective Morals and Values DO Exist

Thank you for your timely response. You said: " I believe that we learn morals, rather than acquire them. We do not have morals "pre-programmed" into our brains, but rather, we base our moral decisions on what we've learned and experienced, and what society deems to be "good" or "bad." Here, you claimed that morals are learned from society. If this is the case, then where did the "thing" that taught you your morals attain its morality from? You cannot use society as a scape-goat for your morality for 2 reasons. 1. If only 2 people were left on earth, you would have no society to learn from. 2. If society claims something to be "good", it must have had a reason to call it "good". What does it mean by the word "good" My proposition against this is that people know what is truly good and what is truly bad, that is, what truly benefits humans, and what destroys them. You already agreed that society sets the precedent for morality. Germans believed killing Jews was a good thing, while other societies believed they were bad. You would say the murder of Jews is both good and bad, which is logically contradictory. You claimed morals were "learned" and therefore admitted that you must have had a concrete standard (objective morals) from which to "learn" from. For instance, you cannot learn how to tie your shoes unless the source you learned it from knew for certain, how exactly how to tie a shoe. If you claim it is subjective, well, there is only 1 way to tie your shoes, that is, the right way. Next off you said: "However, as philosophynow.org argues, "if morality were objective then every member of our species would share the same moral values. But it is patent that we do not share the same moral values.," (S3). Clearly, humans do not share objective morals." 1. So if everyone that disagreed with me was killed and we all ended up having the same moral values then logically, morals would then become objective. Sounds like a few historical figures I know. This website claims that because people have different morals, it is not objective. So if I figured out how to get rid of everyone that disagreed with me, we would all have matching morality, and therefore objective morals. This is not what objective morals means and this website assumes that we would all follow a code of morality if it existed and this is not true because some people would rebel. In which case, you would have no authority to tell them they were wrong. Then you ended with: " I simply perceive giving homosexuals the right to marriage morally good because I see it as an act of equality and I don't see it as something damaging to our society. " Here, you use my worldview of objective morals to justify your own. You can't. This is because you can't even use the words equality or damaging to our society without appealing to an objective standard. What is good about "equality" might I ask? And what is wrong with damaging society? You cannot justify these thoughts with your subjective morals because you will always have another word to justify. For example: You: Murder is bad. Me: Why is it bad? You: Because it isn't beneficial to our society. Me: Why is benefiting society good? You: Because it is better for our survival. Me: Why is surviving good? You will notice that each argument you give will lead to another and seemingly infinite explanation of the prior argument. Unless you have an objective standard by which to call these things, you cannot make any moral claims, or use words like beneficial, good, damaging, and so on, because they all have value to them that exist apart from your existence. Thanks.