There is no objective basis for morality.

Con's position, rather than demonstrating that there is an objective basis for morality, supports Pro's position that morality is based on individual belief, opinion, preference, or some other non-objective source and there is no objective basis for morality. Con starts by providing a second scenario where one group of people commit acts that he (and perhaps most people) finds offensive and asks what would be the normal human reaction. Nowhere does Con explain why the acts of killing is immoral, rather Con attempts to avoid the discussion by appealing to the reader's emotions. Making a statement such as, "Look at this awful thing. Doesn't it make you upset? It must be wrong!" does not explain why an act is immoral (nor would an opposite statement explain why an act is moral) it is just an opinion and not objective. Con needs to objectively explain why the act of killing is immoral. Con states that we see a common morality against murder throughout the world and implies that because of this there is objective morality. I reject this statement as an argument that objective reality exists for two reasons. First, the application of the term "murder" to the act of killing someone moves the discussion away from the objective and becomes subjective. In the scenarios, both Pro's and Con's, the only thing that can be objectively stated is that one man (or group of men) killed another man (or group of men), anything beyond the statement of facts becomes subjective. Con can claim that the act of killing the man on the beach was murder. That would be his opinion and only an opinion as there could be other perceptions by other observers since one man's murder is another man's self-defense is another man's patriotic duty, etc. This brings me to the second reason. Just because an opinion, thought, or idea is shared throughout the world does not mean that that opinion, thought, or idea is objective, it just means that it is shared. I will point out that for a large portion of human history it was thought throughout the world that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun orbited around it. Just because this was a shared opinion throughout the world did not make it true or make it objective. To follow Con's logic that something is moral if it is thought to be so throughout the world, then if torturing people for sport and eating them (or anything else that one considers immoral) was thought throughout the world to be moral, then it would be moral. If morality can change based on people's opinions, even the opinions of a lot of people, then morality is not objective. Con needs to demonstrate that objective morality exists with something other than subjective opinions, thoughts, and ideas even if those opinions, thoughts, and ideas are widely held. Con states that "objective morality always shows up" and points to examples of Ecuadorian Indians and DPRK's prison camp system. Again, this argument does not prove that morality is objective. All these examples do is highlight that different people have different opinions as to what is moral, e.g. the former prison guard that denounces what he saw in the prison camp may think that the acts he witnessed are immoral, but the guards who stay and commit the acts clearly think (based on the fact that they stay and commit the acts) that those same acts are moral. Opinions, even opinions about morality, are not objective. Con has not provided sustainable arguments that demonstrate that killing the man on the beach was objectively either moral or immoral or that objective morality exists. Pro is not swayed by Con's emotional appeal that morality is objective or by the opinions of others that may say that morality is objective. It is still Pro's position 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.