Morals are objective.

Some of you reading this debate may have picked up by now that both pro and con are both stressing the present importance of the situation or the scenario in any decision of morality. I would never deny this even though I am arguing pro. But you see, 'situation morality' is not the opposite of 'objective morality', it merely play's a role in the specificness of the objective moral truth. 'situation morality' only means what the moral truth is will not be small enough to fit on your bumper sticker. Newtons laws of gravity will in common applications work as if its correct though it technically must be considered wrong because it doesn't apply everywhere in the universe; BUT that doesn't mean a universal rule for gravity doesn't exist that by its own laws express's itself in Newtons form on Earth. But you have heard me claim that last round, and I would understand hesitation to believe that makes logical sense when the natural question to think because of this has yet to be answered, "if situation is not the opposite of objective morality (only a cause for its specificness), then what is the opposite?" I will now tell you just what my opponent must defend to show that morality is not objective. A non-objective absolute morality would be one where in the same situation or circumstances where to occur twice in the roe, the moral thing to do would be different. I would call this 'Chaotic Morality'. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to label it 'animal morality' or 'carnal morality' as our carnal impulses would likely be what defines what in the end we decide to be 'moral' as opposed to our reason. A belief in Chaotic Morality mocks the very concept of morality if taken seriously, for if there are no consistent (which would mean objective) determining factors, then how can we say there is morality at all. In fact some on this website have argued there truly is no such thing, and not because of what we name 'morale' changing with the situation but because it changes with the person too. You couldn't really prove Chaotic Morality, as it would by all means test the same as there being no real morality at all. unless of course you could identify the consistent SOURCE that creates the random determining factor of 'morality' that I will now call Z. Then we know morality is just a word to describe that source, like an insane god, aliens that are messing with you, or your hormone levels. But it must always be the same source, then the term 'morality' still carries meaning. It's the word you've chosen describe your hormone activity that you were never self aware enough to know on your own that's what that is. or it consistently might describe the alien probe sensational effects as it creates in you the notion that something is moral or immoral. If its not always source Z though, then there is no morality, because then if asked why you are doing something and you say 'its the right thing to do' that's to say the same as 'I don't know' because it could be the alien, god, your hormone, or the conditioning from the torture your suffered that infrequently kicks in. But we know morality is caused by consistent determining factors, just look at the first round of this debate, my opponent and I, are in large agreement about the standards of when killing is moral. we even both agree about circumstances affecting what is moral. yet we have grown up with different lives and different conditioning, yet the objective truth (objective hear meaning apart from our opinion) prevails to be recognized by both of us. For this to occur there must be more than just our animistic instincts to create a random variable to be "moral" for the moment for us, there needs to be something as true as fact that remains true even when I die. Now you can expect there to be miner variation within a population of people about what is moral, but the fact that there is so much consistency in the view on with the level of agreement that does exist shows an objective fact. sometimes people are wrong about facts, sometimes confused, but their inaccuracy doesn't change the fact that their is a fact. And when their is a true objective fact involved it will bring with it its overwhelming consistences. For example though the morality of something like abortion would be up for debate hear, what of the moral standard in behavior for you to 'give me some of your orange because I gave some of mine' or to 'leave him alone, he's not hurting anybody' you would likely argue that your situation does not qualify for those standards rather than say 'forget your standard'. Moral standards of behavior are indifferent facts and thus we cannot escape them so easily. So to sum up my first round argument that my opponent did not address "just because it doesn't fit on your bumper sticker doesn't make it not objective" to sum up this rounds; "Situation is not opposite of Objective or contradictory to it but is complementary to Objective Morality. Chaotic Morality is opposite to objective morality" and last but not least "Chaotic Morality cannot be the case, as there is far too much consistency in morality to be so." Though that is the core to my argument, I do not wish to have you bored by reading the same thing each round, so next round I will be arguing about the invisible third option.