Objective Morality

He has voided in argument he made prior to this due to me refuting it, and wishes to establish his case. I will no longer offer rebuttals to any prior points because he has ruled them void. I will now focus on his new points. I will break his argument down into main points (1) Society is a motivator and a cause of morality, but cultures and rules have no impact on what morality is itself(2) Morality would not exist without a society (3) The size of a society makes morality more complex(4) Morality is directly relevant to how it will effect a society. I will now start with (1)My adversary claims that society is a catalyst for morality but has no impact on what it is. I in turn disagree. With us debating what objective morality is, we have already mentioned that it is an overall sense of right and wrong and good and evil. Meaning that this must be across the board for every society that exists. For example let me create two different societies. Society 1 lives in Africa. They have never been touched by modern civilization. They worship a God that they believe to be true, and have their own holy book. In this holy book it teaches, that survival is a key part in life. That you must do whatever is deemed necessary to live. It also condones competition for their wives. In fact they believe it okay to murder and fight for who will own the rights to a woman. I will name America as society 2 since it proves my point and I will not have to build an example. We have evolved past these primitive beliefs and believe that women are equal to men. We also know that murder for the sake of murder is wrong. Since each society has a different world view and conflicting views, what makes one right and the other wrong. There is nothing to judge this by. If you for example were born into the first society. At this moment you would think a wife is a tool, and you have the right to murder for her. This would be good or moral, and not be labeled as evil or bad because that is objective within than community. In society two it is the reverse. Therefore there is no gauge of right and wrong or good and evil, and society does determine what morality is and what definitions it has. Now to further demonstrate this point, when society 2 meets missionaries or a different tribe, they start to take in account the beliefs of a different society. This in turn changes their own morality. It warps their definition of what is moral and what is not. At that point they evolve their understanding of what right and wrong is, and have a completely different understand. This is the definition of morality and what is good and evil is directly relevant to culture and time. There can be no objective morality, because you would have to gauge this. We as America believe they are wrong, because of our worldview and experiences. That does not make them wrong because their definition of objective morality is directly relevant as to what they know. (2)I can not refute this point nor do I disagree with it. It however is not applicable to this debate. There is no way to know if morality would exist without a society. I will say that I agree with him since in essence he is saying, that it takes a society to determine what morality is. With him saying this, he has given a free point to my camp(3)Again in entirely agree with him. However this is also another point to my camp. With him acknowledging that the size of a society determines how complex the morality is, is admitting that morality is subjective based off of circumstances. (4)I will offer a direct quote on this point. He states "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. " This is also a true statement but let us look at the implications of it. He says any action will either hurt, help, or have no effect on society. So let me go back to my prior example of society 1 and 2. Murder in society one earns you a wife and possibly fame. While this is helping you, it is also not hindering the society but that is not the question at hand. The question is how do we know that action is morally correct. We can only use our experience that we have to draw our on conclusion. Our experience and conclusion would be different than someone who is in society 1, due to different cultures, technology, and experiences. Due to the fact that my adversary has offered to way to gauge morality objectively across the board that my initial statement is correct. Morality is subjective based off on ones culture, experience, location and knowledge. As I have demonstrated through out this debate, morality is gauged based on the knowledge a society possess at a specific point in time. Since there is no way to judge why one is right, and one is wrong morality is subjective. I eagerly await my opponents response