There is an objective morality

Apologies to my opponent for taking so long to reply. I wanted to bring a bit more order to my arguments, as it is I've still rambled more than I've wanted to.Counter-Arguments"Morality depends upon the existence of subjective experience: Imagine a universe with no subjective experience. Imagine a universe containing no conscious life. Then ask yourself could there be immorality in such a place? Pondering this question I think you’ll quickly realize that there couldn’t."My opponent has unwittingly argued that morality must therefore be by definition subjective. When we call something objective we speak of it "having reality independent of the mind" (from my opponents own definition).For there to be objective morality, morals must exist physically or as descriptions of physical reality. Thus if mankind and all life capable of observation were destroyed the earth would still exist, the laws of logic would still exist in the earth could not be both the earth and not the earth at once, the laws of mathematics would still exist, that is because these are objective.If morality can not survive the destruction of the observer then it does not exist objectively."Morality is a manger of subjective experience: "I have nothing new to add to this section it is effectively dealt with above or is simply part of my opponents case building."Everyone has an objectively ideal subjective experience:"Everyone may have an opinion on what their ideal subjective experience is, what makes this opinion objective?"Remember the contentions:1. Can’t be lying about your ideal subjective experience"Well this is in effect superfluous you have an idea of what your ideal subjective experience is or you do not."2. Can’t be too naive to know what your ideal subjective experience is3. Can’t be deluded –so cut off from reality, and un-open to other possible subjective experiences- that you're unable to judge what your ideal subjective experience is"I challenge both of these contentions, what if someone firmly believes that their ideal experience is to spend an evening in a brothel, having once done so they find themselves distraught realising belated it is a violation of their morality thus destroying any joy they may have?In addition I do not believe that this is even a moral system, let us say that going with a friend to a bar is a better experience than staying at home and trimming my nasal hair. Does this therefore make going to the bar moral, and staying at home to trim my nasal hair amoral."Why there will be acts that consistently objectively violate objectively ideal subjective experiences: Because we are so similar there will be acts that will regularly objectively violate objectively ideal subjective experiences. Rape is probably the easiest to deem as objectively immoral. It by definition objectively violates one’s objectively ideal subjective experience."1: My opponent still needs to obtain an objective value for this argument to even to work.2: If this brings joy to the rapist and grief to the victim are both participants working within the same objective framework?3: My opponent appears to be equating happiness with morality, what makes this objective? "Why should the universe care?"I believe that such references are more illustrative and poetic on the part of moral relativists and nihilists, the universe does not care about the melting point of iron but it is still an objective fact."All that matters is that in a universe containing subjective experience, those subjective experiences will have objectively ideal subjective experiences, and to violate them is to be objectively wrong in a moral sense." My opponent assumes some form of hedonism or pleasure based morality, this is not unreasonable, however this is an arbitrary choice, what gives this objective value? What distinguishes my opponent from a moral relativist?Though I like the approach my opponent has taken I believe at this point he has failed to meet a basic burden or proof for the existence of objective morality.My ArgumentsArgument 1: No Evidence for Objective MoralityTo repeat from before, for there to be objective morality, morals must exist physically or as descriptions of physical reality. Thus if mankind and all life capable of observation were destroyed the earth would still exist, the laws of logic would still exist in the earth could not be both the earth and not the earth at once, the laws of mathematics would still exist, that is because these are objective. No reason exists to apply this definition to morality,Argument 2: Morality is by Definition Logically Meaningless, Circular and Arbitrary, not Objective.My opponent states,Morality: "the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)."However good/right or bad/wrong in what way? Do we mean factually wrong or right? No we mean good/bad, moral/immoral, virtuous/sinful. That which is good is moral, that which is moral is good. The generic description of morality is blatantly meaningless, self-referential. This is a far cry from physical reality, the laws of logic and therefore objectivity.Argument 3: Moral Statements are not Truth Propositions, therefore not Objective.When we make a moral statement such as rape is wrong, charity is right, cheating is wrong, fidelity is right etc, what are we actually saying?Are we saying that these actions are factually wrong or right? Are they factual truth propositions akin to physical reality? No they are expressions of personal opinion. What distinguishes these two statements objectively?"It was wrong of me to sleep with my girlfriends sister"."Chocolate cake is the best".My opponent may argue that moral statements may be assessed in a way that has the most utility for happiness, well being, etc. He may indeed imply logic to such an assessment. So though the process of evaluation may be objective, the premise is entirely subjective.Argument 3: Moral Statements are Invariably Appeals to Emotion, therefore not Objective.Bob is a horrible man, he cheated on this wife.An 85 year old man dating a teenager, that's disgusting.A foetus has a right to life.These are all appeals to emotion. Emotion is not objective fact.What objective reason do we have to assume that Bob is obligated to remain faithful to his wife?Why do you we equate our disgust with an old man dating a teenager with a moral judgement that actually has real meaning. Argument 4: But we all Like x and/or We all dislike YThe existence of commonalities in our likes and dislikes does not imply that something has objective existence. We all dislike pain, is pain objectively wrong? Is pain objectively immoral? No of course not.