There is no such thing as an absolute right and wrong when speaking in terms of morality.

So, here we have the idea of whether there is an "absolute" right or wrong. In this Pro is right, yet wrong. The definition of absolute is: absolute: viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative. I believe Pro really meant to make the claim that there are is no objective right or wrong, and I think this debate should really be centered around if objective moral values exist. Why? Well, let's look at the opposites of "objective" and "absolute" moral values. The opposite of "objective" is "subjective. " The opposite of "absolute" is "relative. " Now very little reflection is needed to see that "relative" does not mean "subjective. " Just because one"s moral duties are relative to one"s circumstances doesn"t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative. "Absolute" means "regardless of the circumstances. " "Relative" means "varying with the circumstances. " We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one"s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill. "Objective" means "independent of people"s (including one"s own) opinion. " "Subjective" means "just a matter of personal opinion. " If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think. I think we can both agree on the existence of Objective Moral Values, or at least a type of Moral Reality that is independent of Humans, and. .. intelligent. In a way, I am referencing God. Be it the Deist God, or the Christian God. However Pro, if you disagree on the existence of a Moral Reality then will you answer a question of mine? Is there any person/persons doing things in the World at this very moment who are doing things that YOU believe must be stopped. Despite what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior? I strongly believe you will say yes, because there are hundreds of things going on in the World right now that people consider to be immoral. Whether it be sexual trafficking, child slavery, etc. So if you say yes, wouldn't that mean that you do believe in a moral reality that is "there" that is not defined by us, and that which must be abided by at all times despite what a person thinks or feels? However, if morality is truly subjective then what makes one groups morality any more "moral" than anothers? Actions like rape, terrorism, and genocide would all be considered morally neutral and not really "bad" because bad itself is just a made up concept. These are some of the reasons why I am arguing for the existence of Objective Morality. These are things that are seen as wrong, there may be other societies that see differently on these topics however the same question must be asked, what makes our moral code any better than theirs? Pro, either you must agree that you believe none of these actions to be wrong or you must agree that there is a "moral reality" out there that isn't defined by us. I don't entirely agree on your statement: "That's because "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than concepts. It's the same thing as beauty, worth, or importance. Understanding of these things changes from each individual person to the next. " You're partially right, what we view as beautiful, filled with worth, or importance is subjective. Every individual has their own definition of what is beautiful, or important. Yet, I still don't think that holds true for objective morality. There would be no sense in being "good" or "bad" I mean, if we are all equal who is man to impose rules on other men? Who is to say their morality is better than another's if we are all human beings? Morality could only hold true if it comes from something higher than mankind. There would be no sense in not killing others to get what you want (It's a lot more quicker and easier than working and saving up money), along with other easier (but morally wrong) ways to get things done. I also believe Pro is right when he says that Morality does hold groups together. However, we must not confuse what is efficient and what is ethical. There is a very big difference. Islamic Societies can argue that what they do is efficient, just as much as Western Societies can. However, both cultures have different ideas on what is "ethical". If morality isn't a fundamental truth to be held up by mankind then there simply is no sense in being either a Stalin or a Saint. All actions are considered morally equal (rape, love, theft, giving)