Objective Morality Does Not Exist

I'll be concise as possible since I'm typing from my phone and won't have access to a computer for awhile. There is literally no point in bringing up our evolved sense of empathy (as a product of evolution) if pro doesn't intend on affirming his BoP with it. His argument is that empathy is the product of evolution. The level of empathy one has determines the immorality of something. The basis of "killing is wrong" is determined by the *feeling* AKA *empathy* that we get as a result of our evolved, socially based cognitive development towards that proposition. Pro says morality lies "within our feelings". Varying levels of empathy amongst different species, such as black widows and humans, explains why morality is subjective but *seemingly* objective to us because human beings share the same levels of empathy (because empathy derives from the brain and we all more or less share the same brains). This explains *why* morality would be relative. So, at best, pro hasn't proven anything. At worst, pro should've responded to my syllogisms last round and has already dropped them. Morality is 100% conceptual. "Principles of good and bad behavior" only applies to a thing capable of a higher level of cognition. To say that it isn't required of a being to understand the concept of morality in order to be subject to a sense of morality is contradictory. Rational choice between good and bad behavior is *essential* to a "moral choice" because it establishes *intent*. A tornado that kills 1,000,000 people isn't acting immorally. It's an a-moral consequence of a natural disaster. A male shark that forcibly copulates with a female shark isn't guilty of "rape". Intent is a fundamental aspect of morality. Intent requires a rational and cognitive mind. If conceptual principles of right and wrong are only applicable to rational, higher functioning cognitive beings, then for all intents and purposes this debate is already over. Pro admits that human beings have a universal sense of wrongness for some actions. That means it couldn't plausibly be nihilistic or subjective. The only alternative is affirming objective morality! Pro says that a beings feelings and opinions are necessary to determine the conclusion of a rational moral process. I agree. But "empathy" is just the ability of oneself to understand another's feelings. It can't tell you *anything* about what we "ought" to do. A torturer can gleefully admit to his victim that "torture really hurts! ". Morality, or principles of "good" and "bad" behavior is solely about what we *ought* to do. Consider the absurdity of Pro's position: any animal that forcibly copulates with another animal is objectively "raping" it. A black widow that kills and eats its mate after procreating is objectively a murdering cannibal. .. This is nonsense. Animals are instinctive - not rational beings. Rationality and intent are necessary for any" moral" choice. Pro confuses objective morality with moral absolutism. He says that "if killing is wrong [in reference to a mosquito] then it's objectively wrong. " He goes on to say that "justified" killing is a subjective personal judgement - and is therefore subjectively immoral. This misses the point. "Killing is always wrong" is an example of moral absolutism. It's true in all places and at all times - regardless of context. "Killing without necessary justification is always wrong" is an example of an objective moral. It's true in all places and at all times - but varies depending on context because "necessary justification" determines whether it's wrong or not. Killing in self-defense is not wrong because it's justified. Killing for fun is wrong because it's unjustified. The basis for "justification" lies in rationality. This determination of "justification" doesn't mean that it's subjectively immoral. Our compassion towards canines isn't because our primordial selves were raised by wolves. It's because they're relatively harmless and cute. We weren't raised by kittens and we get along with them just fine too. The degree of morality or immorality of something is measured in terms of intent, harm, and values of the thing it's affecting. The standard by which we can measure the immorality of something is on rational grounds. Note: it's not my job to provide a counter plan. All I must do to win this debate is cast enough doubt on Pro's case to not merit accepting it.