Morality is objective

Hello, and thank you for the debate. I contend that morality is not objective.Definitions:1. My opponent did not provide a definition for "morality", the term of most significance in this debate, and therefore I will. Morality (noun) [1]: 1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. 1.1 A particular system of values and principles of conduct. 1.2 The extent to which an action is right or wrong. Arguments:Firstly, I am going to address my opponent's premises one by one, following their train of thought, and offer my rebuttals.1. 'We know that out of two actions, we know one action "feels" correct and one action "feels" incorrect.' So far, I agree. 2. 'To feel actions to be correct or incorrect can only be a result of moral objectivity as no other means (such as evolution) can ensure a universal feeling that makes an action to be perceived as correct or incorrect.' My opponent has bypassed a major gap in their claim. After stating that, when encountering two important choices on the same matter, one usually feels more "right" than the other, they go on to assert that the feeling of "right" and "wrong" are universal. An individual distinguishing good from bad is a result of personal morality. However, how does my opponent know that all people have the same sense of morality? Is this not what we are debating?3. 'Therefore, a moral objectivity must exist, and be grounded in religion, where religion is considered to be the only organized system that efficiently divides actions into "correct" or "incorrect" as no other system of that sort exists.'Religion is an organised system of ethical principles, created by humans themselves in order to stabilise their society. But moral objectivity is not required here. I shall elaborate below.Let's first distinguish the difference between a "personal moral principle" and a "moral rule".1. Personal moral principle; what I earlier described as personal morality, briefly each persons' criteria to distinguish "good" and "bad".2. Moral rules, such as those in religion, are regulations created according to the civilisation's beliefs and needs. Humans need to accumulate and form groups, but, for that to happen, moral rules are needed. Therefore, universal moral rules do not necessarily suggest a moral objectivity, for their sole purposes are the settlement of the relations among the people and the proper distribution of the available goods. Religion, too, is an aggregation of moral rules that humans created and ascribed the bestowal of justice to a higher and powerful being. Namely, they are regulations that are self-enforced on humans. The reason for that is exactly that morality is not objective. Because moral principles vary depending on the individual, rules are required so that they do not act in a manner that is not favourable to the society. The basis of these rules is not moral objectivity, but rather a series of logical conclusions concerning which rules will benefit the formation of a society, such as the forbidding of killing or stealing property that belongs to another human. These are the rules that, as time passes, are being taken for granted by the humans who grow within the society and are later regarded as objective and universal. The problem is, for a person who grew up outside of a civilisation, no one can be sure that they live by the same ethical standards as "civilised" people do. Despite that, that person would still follow their own, personal ethical principles. Hence, morality is not objective.Sources: [1] Oxford Dictionaries, "Morality"https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...