Reasonably Morals are Subjective

1. Opponent's source: "Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.", as per: "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.", (http://rationalwiki.org...) The source itself disagrees with my opponent. It is questionable if my opponent knows and understands what objective morality is as their own source decries the standards which they infer. 2. "What Pro does not seem to understand is that on objective morality, torture is objectively wrong (independent of opinion or circumstance) so that any type of torture (enemy or friend) would be evil.", the problem here is that there is no evidence of this. There is no one sound referral for this proposition; the statement that it is wrong because it is is not sufficient. The question was "Why?" and never answered. Sadly it will not be explained in this debate. 3. "However, this does nothing to show that the moral senses do not exist. If you are being tricked into thinking that you are tasting Coca-Cola when in fact you are drinking Pepsi in your cup, does this mean that there is no such thing as a sense of taste? In the same way, just because one's moral sense is under the same sort of trick or illusion, it does not follow that moral senses do not exist at all.", the opponent shifts burden of proof; it is, or was, their duty to actually provide that moral senses exist. It is not my claim so even under the presumption that they did it was completely hypothetical presuming they do, however the opponent dodges this by instead insisting that it is a question of their existence versus their mechanics; my rebuttal specifically stated that they could be fooled if they existed and instead of ensuring that they were not so subject to such the red herring was posed instead. In the second portion it is simply the fact that our senses are weak, if we must liken them to our "moral senses", and furthermore technology is what grants us and our senses the power to continue to thrive. To that end the human as a beast alone is not sufficient, what makes his "moral senses" sufficient? Nothing. Why do I bring this up? Particularly because even if hypothetically such senses existed, which were never shown to other than through a claim that is unsupported, their objectivity would be relative to their actual strength no different than the objectivity of what we see and feel would be relative to the strength of the physical senses in humans. There are many things we cannot see, cannot feel, cannot taste, cannot smell, and cannot hear so if our moral senses were keen enough to form an objective standard how strong are they? Furthermore how do we measure their strength? How do we measure them period? These are all key to providing that objective morality would have a basis on "moral sense". After all the capacity to see means very little if you cannot actually see very well, and so the same here. As for the third but there's no backing for "moral senses" that can be likened to physical senses. With no basis for what you consider to be the medium for the standard then there's no value to assuming the standard itself exists esp. if it's intangible. I will rest my case by stating two things: A) There has been no evidence provided for any form of moral standard or universal standard by my opponent. There are three unfounded claims (moral senses, accuracy of moral sense, objectivity of moral senses) relating to the issue. B) Opponent's source disagrees with him in the sentence right after that which he quotes stating functionally that no such thing as objective morality exists due to a lack of strong argumentation. Close.