Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

So, your claim is that that universal morality is both prevalent and hidden?I think what I said (Just because [there] exists an action which would constitute the most moral thing in any given situation doesn't mean we know what they all are) was more clear than what you reworded it as. You’ve taken a simple response and clouded it in ambiguous terms.I hope you do not intend to undermine me by misrepresenting my replies, if this is the case I will back off and leave you to your stage.”It's a learning process”Then how do you know when you have it right?Just because we don’t have an answer for ‘how many people in the past 30 minutes were killed by a DUI/DWI related incident” doesn’t mean that there isn’t data on that to measure. As we approach questions which have measurable effects we can examine the data in such a way to lead to the best possible course of action, moral questions are no exception. These measurable effects constrain personal opinions about right or wrong.Does a statement like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good" allow for such nuance?When you ask different moral questions, such as “taking care of newborn offspring in general” vs “taking care of newborn offspring in an environment with limited resources” or “taking care of deformed newborn offspring,” you could arrive at a different answer for each one. Objective morality is the idea that for any moral question, there exists measurable qualities which are not contingent upon perspective but on demonstrable effects.You said "[t]he morally correct answer for newborns born with deformities is not the same answer for newborns born without", and I am pointing out that "deformity" is a continuum - everyone is imperfect, it is just a matter of degree.No. “deformity” in this regard would be a medical diagnosis. You’re equating it with an abstract concept such as imperfection only reflects poor reasoning.If the degree of deformity, and all of the other inputs - probability of longevity, pain, happiness, etc. and the value that the interested parties put on life vs quality of life vs resources are all based on (subjective) perception - doesn't that describe subjective morality rather than something quaint like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good"?If they were based on subjective perception then that would suggest subjective morality and this debate would be over.Degree of deformity, longevity of suffering, pain, happiness (and other states of mind), the value of life vs quality of living life with deformities, the amount of resources needed to support a new life vs the amount available… all are measurable qualities which could be verified and examined to arrive at an objective answer regardless of (subjective) perception. Whatever moral questions arise at that point would be based on verifiable data, constraining personal opinion on the matter.Then name them. If a specified moral has exceptions, then it is not universal, correct?I don’t have to name all possible answers to all of life’s moral questions in order to posit the existence of moral objectivity as I explained above. You seem to assume that claiming moral objectivity means that one has the answers to everything, or that there is one answer to address all possible moral questions.If a specified moral statement has exceptions then it is not absolute, correct. I assume that is what you understand “universal/objective” to imply? Not all forms of moral objectivism are absolutist; I prefer to think in practical terms.In a discussion about objective vs subjective morality, I keep using the words objective and subjective - fancy that...Yes. It would be odd if I were merely objecting to your general use of the words. My contention was that you seem to feel the need to randomly insert them in unnecessary places. Again, if you intend on misrepresenting my comments I’ll gladly leave you to your stage.In order to "measure" a moral's rightness, you need to be able to gauge its progress toward some goal - preservation of the most humans, the most utility of resources, maximization of happiness, etc. There is no evidence of an objective goal, nor from whence it would come. There is, however, good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates who survived by balancing cooperation and competition.Just because you cannot think of one doesn’t mean there is no evidence of one. If there is good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates which helped them survive then perhaps survival is the goal you impose on this criterion to prove objective morality. I find that moral questions allude to the simple wellbeing of thinking creatures, but I also don’t assert such a requirement need exist to posit moral objectivism.even if universal morality does exist, it is basically useless - if humans can't access it, what good is it exactly?The usefulness becomes apparent when we recognize that moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior can be answered practically and validated with data and facts which would render peoples’ personal opinions nothing but. We have the means to test and examine the factors underlying moral issues. We use science to determine the most accurate explanations thus far about reality and the universe; we can apply the same method of verification to moral conduct.