There is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong when speaking in terms of morality.

I appreciate the attempt by con to redirect the argument into what he feels is a more accurate direction, however, I fully intend to center this debate around the concept of absolute morality, not "objective morality". Although I will refute both if it makes any difference at all. Now they are close to the same thing and while I am fully aware of this, I do believe that my original intent works best for the stance I'm trying to make. Absolute does, in fact, have the definition stated as: "Viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative". This being said, it also has the definition: "a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things". Particularly in regards to concepts of "good" and "evil" which are viewed as absolutes. Both of these definition work perfectly fine in relation to what I'm trying to prove. Anything beyond that is an unnecessary nitpick of semantics that isn't needed to make any of our points valid. But if only to satisfy con, the Definition of Objective is as follows: "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". Some Synonyms include,impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, and open-minded, This belongs more in a courtroom or in an historians notebook and less in an argument that is attempting to justify how there can be no full or "absolute" truth inside of the concept that is Morality. Just to hammer my point in a little bit more, synonyms of Absolute include, complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, and decided. Now I do understand where con is coming from in this regard as in a specific circumstance it may sound better to say something like "Well in this situation the objectively right thing to do is....." However, the words are pretty much interchangeable and absolute doesn't mean that circumstance is irrelevant. I also noticed that con decided to borrow a large section of his argument from one Doctor Craig on reasonablefaith.org and copy paste his words verbatim. Now I wouldn't even say anything if con had quoted or even given credit to the man. He did not. His paragraph, and the two that follow, that starts off saying "The opposite of Objective is subjective" is directly taken from a response the good doctor had to a question he received about morality. I will leave the link to this here in order for anyone to cross check it, as con neglected to do so himself. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... Now con's first actual argument is stated as, "I think we can both agree on the existence of Objective Moral Values, or at least a type of Moral Reality that is independent of Humans, and...intelligent. In a way, I am referencing God. Be it the Deist God, or the Christian God." If we could both agree than this debate wouldn't be happening at all. Aside from one's personal belief in a deity or a god, which is not the topic of this debate, there is no real argument that can be made for the existence of an absolute or objective morality. And considering that the existence of such a deity has yet to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, using this as your fundamental argument is a very weak one, if it can even be considered one at all. So pro I will answer your question. There are, indeed, many things in this world that happen in divergence of my own personal beliefs but the key words here are "My own personal beliefs" These are not truths. They are nothing more than opinions formed in accordance with the things I was told to understand and the direction of the society I grew up in. Not "things I just knew" or "things God told me" or even "things I could just feel" And yes I did form some of these myself but only after my understanding of the world was influenced very heavily by the very society itself. In any given society, morals can be considered to fall under the category of "norms" or "expected norms" and in Sociology the description for this is "norms are regarded to exist as collective representations of acceptable group conduct as well as individual perceptions of particular group conduct." or "Norms are cultural products (including values, customs, and traditions) which represent individuals' basic knowledge of what others do and what others think that they should do." These things are brought from one person to the next and vary widely from culture to culture. None of them can be said to originate from some higher understanding because we can't even prove the existence of a higher understanding. The only intelligent life that has ever been observed exists on this planet. Observably then, it's only logical to ascertain that all levels of understanding, all concepts, moral codes, social values, ect ect ect, originate from this planet and the intelligent life on it. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.sociologyguide.com... Now con brings up some examples of why he thinks objective morality exists. These things include rape, sex trafficking, child slavery. and a few others. I will attempt to address this very carefully as to not get the wrong point across as I'm sure many of you are very passionate about your "beliefs" when it comes to topics such as these. Now I personally believe these things are wrong and I'm sure the huge majority of you do as well. But to say that we believe these things because they are objective, or absolute is completely unwarranted. I believe these things to be wrong because I was taught that these things are wrong. Not because the universe or some higher power decided that they are "objectively wrong" and then told me or someone else. If I was raised in a society that taught me the opposite than I would believe the opposite. Proof of this can be found all throughout history. Spartan warriors were known to have homosexual relationships with a younger male. In this it was the older male's job to mentor or guide the younger into becoming a man or warrior. These younger males started at the age of 12 and 13... This was considered completely normal and accepted by the standards held within spartan society. Today we would call that "child molestation" "rape" "Solicitation". In 1600's America slavery was a cultural and societal norm. Slaves were tortured, raped, beaten, killed, and whatever else slave owners decided to do because they were considered property. These things were legal and accepted and these values were taught and passed as norms. Cannibalism is probably one of the most horrific concepts most people can think of. However human flesh is a dish central to the culture of the Korowai tribe from Indonesian New Guinea. They see nothing wrong with it because they were never told too see anything wrong with it. Elementary S3E4 Sherlock too Artificial intelligence Bella " Love. Surely it's a human construct. A hedge against the terror of mortality. I believe that. That doesn't account for the times I felt it myself. My mother. Irene. Even after a fashion, Watson. It vexes. Love is either a human construct or it's a real thing, right? I know you need more information." Bella in response "The question cannot be answered. The concept of love exists. Therefore it is useful even if it is a human construct. It exists because it serves a need. A question that can be answered might be 'why is love needed'?" Morality should be seen this very way. It's "Useful because it serves a need" However, it is still a human Construct.