Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Not that I would ever do such evil things--this is just an example, please understand, but lets say that, I agreed with you, as you said: "morality is subjective," and I came over to your house, beat you up, raped you, your spouse or sister, abused your child, and then killed the rest of your family... all because under my "morality," I thought that there was nothing immoral about it. Think about that picture, the pain and grief that I know you would experience. You're telling me, that you really wouldn't complain about it, because "it's in your mind" or "only a label" and so you wouldn't define those actions as "immoral" or "evil"? I really don't think you can live up to your assertions if really tested. They state too much. Morality is a system built upon your current personal preferences. You're preferences will exist with or without defining them as morality. You see, if I prefer to not have my wife and kids killed/raped etc. then I logically would take precautions to prevent such things.I don't need to label your acts as "immoral" to convince myself to seek revenge on you, all I'd need to do is say to myself "this man has taken away the things I love, I will do the same to him". Or I can choose not revenge and move on with my life. When you only adhere to your preferences you can choose without any trouble, but when you have an idea of justice you will be at odds. You may want to take revenge, but your morality commands you don't, or you may want to leave it be but your morality demands justice. Perhaps you WANT revenge AND your morality allows this, but then that's no different than if you only followed your preferences in the first place.Just because we label something in our mind, doesn't mean it doesn't correspond to objective reality or morality.Almost correct. Just because we label something in our mind, doesn't mean it doesn't correspond to objective reality is correct and I haven't argued against this, but adding "morality" at the end makes this inconsistent and contradictory. 1) b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>Well, morality certainly isn't independent of the mind, so by this definition objective morality is not possible.3) expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretationsThe again, by this definition objective morality cannot exist. Everyone has different preferences. Everyone interprets events in their own way, no two people are entirely alike. This is why no two philosophers ever agree entirely. Sure, most people will agree on things like murder and thievery. But, this is only because it's almost universally true that people prefer not to have their things stolen or to be killed. So again it is a matter of preference, not of some objective moral law. This is easily shown when you ask people about the exceptions to no murder/no stealing that they believe in. Some say it's o.k. to kill if you are attacked, some say never. Some say you can steal if you are starving, others say you can steal to feed orphan kittens - or something like that. It's all based on preference.