Objective Morality

I thank you for taking the time to post your world view on this matter, and with precise and providing us on the definition of the terms we will be using throughout this debate. I will use your definition and add another to it to make up the entity of what we will be discussing. Definition of OBJECTIVE a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence "used chiefly in medieval philosophy Morality (Noun): 1.Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior 2.Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles So when we ask the question is there such as thing as objective morality we are asking, is there "principles concerning the distinction of right and wrong existing without consideration of independent existence" That is a lot to take in and hard to understand. It is basically stating that there are overlying rules that exist within nature. We are saying that when one commits murder, and even though it is acceptable by the society he is in, he is wrong because there is a sort of universal Guide line. I will keep my opening opinion short and simple and respond to the rebuttal that pro will offer. I believe that morality is not objective at all. I would even say that there is no such thing as objective morality. As my opposition stated in his opening statement. " there is still subjectivity in how we integrate morality into our society". The subjective of accepting those morals that he is referring to is the exact definition of what morality is in itself. Morality itself is complete subjective depending on ones culture, location, religion, and experiences within life. Where as we living in america and some of the more blessed parts of the world see murder as wrong, someone in some of the bad parts of Africa or any other of the less evolved parts of the world may see it as a way of life. The same came be said about rape, incest, and any other argument one can present. All of this is acceptable within the animal kingdom so what makes it wrong within our society. The question is, is it really wrong? or maybe even what is wrong? Depending on where you are raised your definition of morality will have an entirely different meaning as I have stated earlier. Even within the states my definition of right and wrong will not line up with how my opposition sees right and wrong. So the main question here is there a guideline by which our morals are judged? I believe there is not. This is a bold statement and I am aware it is unpopular but it in fact is true. Take for example how we perceive morality and right and wrong now. If Hitler would have won his campaign and America fell to his tyranny, how would we view morality then? Our entire definition has changed because of the circumstance. Perhaps we see murder as acceptable and surviving as a necessity. Would we murder and steal to help keep our families alive, because then we are doing what it takes to live. According to how we perceive morals now that is wrong, but in the situation it is not. I conclude that morality is entirely dependent on where you are at a specific moment in time and what you are experiencing. Depending on the circumstance the definition of right and wrong will never be solid, and will forever bend to fit that specific situation. Thus there is no objectivity.