It is more likely than not that morality does not exist

A Slightly Late Rebuttal As is not uncommon with debates of such philosophical, abstract nature, this has turned into something other than what it started; namely, semantics. Given your contentions, that’s the only possible angle I have yet left to me. That being said, the problem isn’t particularly difficult to amend, having already had an answer, simply not explicitly stated. I left it as an undertone, but I can see now how it could have caused some degree of ambiguity. Your main contention seems to be based upon the notion that I have excised from my argument its inherent meta-physical nature. If correct, I’d agree that it would be to the complete detriment of my proposition; but this is not the case. It’s a complicated idea, but one that’s commonly accepted nonetheless. The world rarely has blacks or whites. Things exist, palpable or abstract, in an almost invariable shade of grey. Here, we’ve reached a particularly dark shade of grey where moral subjectivity meets nihilism. To find a definite line between the two would be a literal impossibility, given subjectivities implicit, non-explicit, ever-changing attributes. You were correct to say they were similar, but in terms of determining which is more likely, I think they’re exactly different enough. Clarification is necessary here, but where normally I’d clarify both why I think subjective morality is more likely, and why I think my argument maintains the meta-physical nature of right and wrong, I can do only the latter. This is because doing the former would provide a new argument for which you’d be unable to respond, and it doesn’t seem fair to do so, because you provided no such arguments for me. It seems only right that I should address your contentions, and leave my initial argument, as yet unaltered, to stand as it is. Now, all this on the table, the only response seemingly required of me is that of clarification: “The concept of good or bad actions, thoughts, and behaviors”, defined by whatever society the system or morality is subject to (as that is what subjective morality is) and further, that it is a result of their instinctual view of what is good or bad, and is thusly subject to change as the society itself changes, and/or evolves to be instinctually opposed to new and different actions or ideas. The argument never claims that morality is tantamount to instinct, simply that it is caused by it. It wouldn’t be subjective morality to say morals are instincts, but to say instincts are the cause of society creating the idea still creates something very much real, and that is the argument here; whether morality is real. To quote from the original argument, “… our general system of morals is based upon our general instincts”. It doesn’t allude to sameness, but to one generally being the cause (instincts) and the other being the effect (morals). The argument is trying to say that morals are based upon an idea, conjured up by society, to determine what is right and wrong, and that right and wrong are generally caused by the instincts of our race to not commit certain acts. For example, it is instinctual for humans to avoid hurting one another, but morality leaves up the interpretation of the society in question what that actually entails. Thanks for the debate! I had fun, and I look forward to seeing your feedback, as well as the communities. :)