There is no objective basis for morality.

I agree with Con's statement: "...if morality was truly objective, EVERYONE COULD think torture was OK, and it would still be objectively immoral." In fact, I made this argument in Round 2 to rebut Con's statement from Round 1 that we see a common morality against murder throughout the world. Con restated my argument and, again, has provided no arguments that demonstrate that morality is truly objective. After stating that right and wrong are not physical realities but are concepts, Con then asks, "... are moral concepts a universal force in humanity?" Con offers as proof the example of one prison guard who at first believed one thing and then changed his mind. How is an example of one man proof of a universal force let alone proof that morality is objective? If anything, the fact that the prison guard believed one thing was moral and then believed that it was immoral, further demonstrates the subjective nature of morality. If an act can be moral one day and immoral the next day and then moral again the day after that, it is not objective but subjective. If Con is attempting to demonstrate that the prison guard in the example somehow discovered objective morality instead of simply changing his mind based on his individual beliefs, opinions, or preferences, then Con needs to provide a better and more comprehensive explanation detailing how the guard discovered objective morality and that the guard actually discovered objective morality. Con then states that there is evidence for an objective moral against the taking of human life in some form or another because "The distinction between justified killing and unjustified killing have been recognized in most of human history, in one way or another." This is simply a restatement of Con's argument from Round 1 without any further arguments that demonstrate that morality is objective. I rejected this argument previously and I reject it now. While I agree that humans have, and do, attached different labels to the act of killing and have considered the act of killing labeled one way to be different from the act of killing labeled another way, this does not demonstrate that morality is objective. In fact, Con argues against this explanation of objective morality when Con stated, "Objective morality would not require a democratic vote to be true, because it has reality independent of the minds of humanity." So, even if all humans throughout history and throughout the world decided, via democratic vote or otherwise, that one form of killing was immoral and another was moral, that decision would not be objective. Con needs to provide an argument other than "morality is objective because everyone thinks that it is" in order to demonstrate that morality is objective. Finally, Con once again, it appears, tries to convince the reader that morality is objective by making an emotional appeal. Con seems to forget that Con stated that objective morality "...has reality independent of the minds of humanity" so even if a reader was swayed by emotion (something not independent of the minds of humanity) it does not demonstrate that morality is objective. Further, the emotional appeal made by Con in Round 2, is, in my opinion, ad hominem and repugnant. Implying that someone who does not agree with you, i.e. does not vote the way you think they should, is a "little warped" is not a proper debating tactic and should not be used. In conclusion, my argument is still that there is no objective basis for morality and that the action of killing the man on the beach was neither moral nor immoral and any classification of the action as either moral or immoral is not objective but is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source. I reject Con arguments for the reasons given in Rounds 2 and 3 and contend that Con has not provided a sustainable argument(s) that demonstrates that killing the man was objectively either moral or immoral and therefore has not met the burden of proof.