Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Jeez, you just seem to have it out for me. =pNo, I don't. You're just wrong a lot. I'd do the same for anyone else. =pBesides, what you just said shows conscience is a societal mechanism, not the contrary. XDNot really, unless you're fond of leaps of reasoning. XDThis too is testimony to conscience NOT being a natural thing... perhaps you should read your comments aloud to yourself before you post them from now on.=/Again, not really. I am attesting to man's evolution as a rational being. Maybe you should read my comments aloud to yourself before attempting to refute them from now on. =/This factually not true. Even in the time of Socrates you could find philosophers everywhere, each with a different philosophy on morals. There were utilitarians, ethical relativists, deontologicalists, etc. etc. etc.You've misunderstood me dreadfully. Laws against murder, theft, rape, those all existed, even waaaaaay back in the time of So-Crates.If you're talking about Lloyd DeMause's work on psycho-historyI'm not.Chimps won't "feel bad" about stealing from another chimp. Baboons won't remorse when they murder another baboon in a fight.That's pretty egregiously incorrect.http://www.jstor.org/pss/4534969http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all if this top-down hierarchy of conscience you're talking about is true then it means morals are NOT emergent and thus unnatural. Your statements are, once again, testimony to the unnatural mechanism of the conscience. XDAllow me to paraphrase: "Evolutionary morals? Unnatural! XD"Murder, perhaps, because NOT killing each other is needed for civilization. But, things like thievery are 100% based on society. Children steal all the time. they don't stop until the idea that thievery is wrong is instilled into them. Or, the child will, on their own, learn that stealing inspires a mistrust in his peers and ruins his reputation.Can you say "c-c-c-c-conjecture?" Link a study, genius! XDthat AD you linked as "supporting evidence" means nothing as none of his arguments are outlined in the review (as one would expect) so it's impossible to get any context on the book contentI linked it because it was general enough to give a vague idea of a vast area of study, maybe inspire you to go to YouTube and view one of countless lectures on the subject, maybe go to Google and type in "Primate morality." You know, I hoped that it might inspire--I don't know--thought. unless I buy it. Which I'm obviously NOT going to do.Ever heard of a library?Or do you just dislike unnecessary reading?I doubt you've even read that book since it doesn't even go on sale until October... which means you actually had the nerve to link and ad promoting a book you haven't read just so you could seem like you had at least SOME evidence backing you.Don't sell yourself short. I didn't expect that you would somehow not notice that the book hadn't been released. Like I said, it was the most generic link I could think of, considering that I can only embed one in every post. Besides, from what the reviews imply, this book set out to prove that one can a have a moral code without being in a religion. This in NO WAY stands antithesis to the conscience being a social construct.Again, I hoped that the preview of the book would spark your interest. I apparently missed that there was nothing to ignite.The author makes the argument that morality is biologically-based. Which, granted, is not the argument I'm making, but it specifically refutes the claim you made and is not exclusive to those that I make. Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww Be warned, though: it's a whole 24 minutes of talking. Next time, link a study, NOT an ad.I'll be sure to do that after gauging the caliber of my audience, hot stuff!