Morality is an Objective Construct

Second, thank you for the well thought response. I look forward to discussing this further. Third, I am in fact a "he" :)I will present my response in two parts: Refutation of the original arguments posited by my opponent(s) and responses to their refutations of my arguments. I will proceed in reverse order, as it seems more prudent to my argument"s framework. Refutation 1: Logical Proof of SubjectivityThe agreed definition of judgement is "a proposition of something believed or asserted". According to Merriam Webster"s full definition of assert (1), the verb assert is defined in the following way: "to state positively and often forcefully or aggressively". I take note that this definition is lacking any mention of personal belief, as an assertion can be a statement of an objective fact. This therefore renders posit 3 and 4 incorrect, as posit 1 (specifically the individual belief portion) is rendered incorrect. Refutation 2: Morality is influenced by circumstance. (And my response to refutation 3 from my opponent"s last round)I make the argument that any fact that relies on the human ability to observe is influenced by circumstance. Again, I would like to consider an example that many would consider to be an objective truth: The Earth rotates around the sun. This was believed by many to be false, due to their (1) culture, (2) time they were born, and (3) the personal experiences of the people who lived during that time. Just because over time, (1)cultures change to become more accepting of science, (2) science (and it"s ability to find new ways to observe the world) evolved over time, and (3) the people who were given educations, does not make science (nor the Earth rotating around the sun) a subjective truth. Instead, I posit that this shows the ability of human beings to adjust their understanding of the world over time as more evidence becomes available. My opponent mentioned that this argument is comparing "apples to oranges", due to morality not being completely measurable, testable, material and outside of the scope of interpretation. Again, I make the argument that science itself at one time did not have the tools to measure most of the observable universe. That did not mean that science as a construct, or the facts that were uncovered using science were subjective. It just meant that over time, as our tools and knowledge changed, so did our understanding of the world. I am comparing the path of an objective truth to the path of morality to show similarities. Scientific facts are not subjective, our interpretation of it changes over time. I posit that morality is following the same path. Moving on, I"d now like to respond to my opponent(s)" counterarguments with new arguments of my own. Counterargument 1: In refuting my point, my opponent(s) mention that there are numerous points in history where murder was not considered to be immoral, therefore attempting to prove my point invalid. However, I posit that the definition of "murder" is considered loosely by my opponent as "killing anyone". I don"t accept this defintion. Merriam-webster (2) defines murder as "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". I claim that in times of war, killing is not considered to be unlawful, and therefore is not considered to be murder. The Islamic state is under the belief that they are at holy war, and therefore, do not consider the (terrible) killing of other people as immoral, as they do not consider it to be murder as defined above. Counterargument 2:As the first portion of this refutation seems to be a continuation of refutation 1 (disproving objectivity through ISIS killings), I believe counterpoint 1 addresses these points. The end of this argument gets more toward a refutation of my points (that murder does not benefit the murderer"s survival chances). My opponent states: "Regardless of whether or not those who fail to follow evolution as an objective arbiter of morality are then killed, their differing interpretations still disprove evolution as moral regardless of interpretation(objectively). "I think that this is a very important distinction to make. My opponent has used the phrase "their differing interpretations". Again, just because interpretations of morality differ, does not mean that there is not a truthful objective morality. It may just mean that we do not have to tools to accurately discover that objective truth in this point of our development. Counterargument 3: This has been addressed by refutation 2 above. Counterargument 4:This was addressed in counter argument 2. I do not accept the argument that because we don"t know how to measure morality yet, it does not exist. Just because people prior to galileo did not see galaxies in the depths of space, does not mean that those galaxies did not exist. Argument 5 (A Clarification): I think that it is important to make a clarification of my framework. It is not the objective of this debate (according to the agreed upon rules) that the onus is upon me to prove that humanity has implemented (or is even aware of) objective morality. Therefore, humanity"s interpretation of an objective morality (or how it changes over time) is not an important argument. I am making the claim that an objective morality exists, whether discovered or undiscovered, and that in the long run (think macro evolution periods of time), objective morality will naturally come about through natural selection. I present that those rules that most favor the survival of the human species will be discovered through (unintentional) experimentation, and eventually those people who have followed moral ideals that did not increase their likelihood of survival will eventually be weeded out of humanity. Definition Sources. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...Thank you again for your well-thought out response. I look forward to the next round.