Morality is objective

I will begin this round by addressing my opponent's arguments, and by rejecting the assertion that 'it is virtually undeniable that morality is objective'. The first point that my opponent makes is that laws are an example of how morality is objective. He claims that the legal system is one of the many ways with which we categorize what is right and what is wrong, which I fully grant. However, I reject the assertion that this categorization is objective; if country A says that abortion is illegal and country B says that it is legal, is abortion objectively right or wrong? It obviously can not be both. Even within a single country, laws are accepted/refused solely based on popularity (of the senate or otherwise, I'm not really good in politics), and majority does not mean objectivity. Laws are only objective within themselves: If the laws says that you can't have an abortion, than you objectively can't have an abortion according to the law, but that doesn't mean that abortion is objectively morally wrong. There is also the issue of judges (and juries); their duty is basically to give their own subjective interpretation of the law, which somehow negates the objectivity of the law. The second paragraph is melting pot of many arguments, which I will address one by one:'We believe all people have at least some right to life, health, and happiness. ' Universal agreement is in no way evidence (much less proof) for objectivity. There was a time where everyone believed the earth was flat and yet, it wasn't. 'If morality is subjective, we would have no concrete reason to be upset by these activities because we have no objective rights. ' Two things: First, we would indeed have a reason to be upset, but no OBJECTIVE reason; subjective does not mean meaningless. Second, I reject the assertion that we have objective rights; rights are granted to people based on our moral system, be it subjective or objective. 'This principle is more pronounced if taken to its logical extreme. Raping babies, molesting children, and torturing animals is not wrong in a subjectively moral world. They are simply activities pursued by people who feel like doing them – no different from people who feel like planting trees or writing novels. In order to refute the existence of moral objectivity, my opponent must accept that we live in such a world. ' That is one big fallacy of appeal to consequences. My opponent is falling in the common trap of 'subjective morality leads to chaos because everyone can do what they want', but reality is far from that. Societies are organized around a basic set of rules, which are determined by popularity by the founders of that society BASED on their own individual subjective sense of morality. 'Conversely, I submit that we all sense some activities are wrong across every culture and that this is a demonstration of objective morality’s existence. ' Again, universal agreement does not mean objectivity, that is a fallacy of appeal to popularity. I will now address my opponent's rebuttals. His first point is quite puzzling: he claims that a personal belief ('I do not believe X') is objective. The only way I can see this working is if you say something like 'it is objectively true that I believe X', which is still puzzling because something that is objectively subjective is still subjective in nature. 'Con is attempting to argue that moral subjectivity is truer than moral objectivity despite my disagreement. Every rebuttal Con makes during this debate is an appeal to the very objectivity they are trying to reject. ' It would seem that my opponent is trying to dress me (figuratively) with the position 'nothing is objective', which is not my position (I'm only saying that MORALITY is not objective). I draw this conclusion based on the fact that my opponent preemptively addresses my rebuttals by saying that my position precludes them from being objective; but morality cannot really be applied to my arguments. I hope that my opponent is not conflating 'right and wrong' with 'true and false'. For his second point, my opponent compares gravity with morality. I hope I'm not patronizing when I say that this is a horrible analogy. Gravity is something that can be MEASURED and TESTED, while morality can not; these two things have absolutely nothing in common. In his conclusion, my opponent points to the existence of this debate as evidence for his claims, which again brings me to think that he is trying to change my position to 'nothing is objective'. I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttals. P. S. I would like to express my relief that the God Argument wasn't brought up, because I really don't feel like turning this debate into a 'God exists' debate.