Morality is an objective truth

I'm in support of that decision, pro. And before I start I have to say throughout most of the argument I was nodding my head instead of shaking it.I believe there isn't an objective morality for one particular reason, and that reason is context, con briefly touched upon this with what he called a 'grey area'.First, pro explains how language contains references to objective morality, but I ask you this: Is it not true that the large majority of people believe their moral code to be correct? And that language would reflect that?Furthermore, he says that morality is basically the same across all cultures, however, this could probably be attributed to more globalized societies. If we take an example of a society that was isolated for a long period in it's history, Japan.Japan Is known for it's moral code and emphasis on honour. However, this contrasts starkly with the fact that it has a pornography industry three times larger than the Americas, which isn't generally considered a moral profession in the west.This may be attributed to their lax views on nudity and sex in it's history, which wasn't shared by other societies at the time. This is why the introduced a law to censor pornography, to shift their moral views to the more globalised moral standards.In the segment "morality throughout the ages" it is stated that murder, theft, etcetera are issues that are considered taboo and have been for thousands of years. This is a solid argument, except for context.Murder is taboo, but killing an opposing, invading force is moral.Theft is wrong, but taking weapons of mass destruction from a terrorist organizations is heroic.Rape, you might say, is an exception.However, rape was once defined as "the perpetration of an act of sexual intercourse with a female, not one's wife, against her will and consent." So we see that there was a time where rape was immoral, unless you were married.After this, the grey areas are mentioned, it is stated that they can not be used to refute objective morals. The argument for this is that "people can get confused and miss the truth" If we see this from the standpoint of objective mortality, it presents clear issue. If people don't always see the objective moral code, then what's the point of it existing? People don't always see it or follow it, so it might as well be subjective.Slavery is then brought up. It is stated that morality can't be a Societal construct, because slavery drove the economy and it was beneficial for society to keep them.All this proves is that morality exists, if there was an objective moral code against slavery, how could slavery have happened in the first place? Besides, slaves were more common and humanized overtime naturally, therefore they became a key part of society, so it was best for society to free them.The following segment states that even if there are two sides of an argument, such as abortion, they both agree that murdering innocent person is wrong, unless they're psychotic in some way. This unless refutes the entire argument, there are people who do not have a moral code, or lack morals most people adhere to, therefore we don't have an objective morality.I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it's still something to consider, I have personally harmed people for no reason or justification. If I adhered to objective morality, then I would never have done it. Yes, I know what my beliefs section of my profile says, I hurt those people before adopting my current stance, you may say this is because I'm adopting the objective morality, but I disagree, I adopted this stance because it fits better into what society deems acceptable.Finally, we move into the conclusion.It is stated that if subjective morality exists, I must accept the following as fact: First,that rape, murder, paedophilia and slavery are are not bad, because what's bad and good is subjective.I agree, but society declares these things as bad and I have incentive to agree.Second, that The U.S. was wrong in condemning what the Nazi's were doing to the Jews, Catholics, and homosexuals. The Nazi society did not consider it to be a moral evil. If no objective morality exists, how can a society tell another what they're doing is wrong?The U.S declaring war had little to nothing to do with their treatment of those people, they joined in retaliation for pearl harbour. Third and finally, there is nothing objectively wrong with harming others. I agree. But society has deemed it wrong.This has been engaging from the start, I can't wait to hear your reply, pro.References:http://www.japantoday.com...http://www.stoa.org...https://coelsblog.wordpress.com...https://www.gwu.edu...