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

Why is a human using a beast of burden objectively wrong?Why is a colony of ants taking slaves from a defeated colony objectively wrong?What is the basis for objective morality?I don’t think it’s necessary to detail specific instances in order to notice that there are things which are immoral regardless of who the victim is.The basis for any morality is the wellbeing of thinking creatures. From that, we can determine right and wrong.  Why, then, is it not considered an immoral act when an animal kills a human over territory, as compared to when humans kill one another over territory?Who says it’s not immoral?Are you asking me why animals aren’t held to the same standard as humans in regard to acting morally?Animals don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend right and wrong; it wouldn’t make sense that they be considered culpable for their immoral acts… coincidentally it wouldn’t be moral to place such blame.Much in the same way we don't hold a mentally retarded person accountable for an immoral act; we don’t consider the act moral, we just recognize that they lack the ability to comprehend right and wrong. Irrelevant. I can agree that human slavery is subjectively morally wrong under any and all circumstances, while still rejecting the idea of objective moralityI concede that to think of any situation where it would be considered moral is irrelevant.However, if you agree that human slavery is morally wrong under any and all circumstances, you are in effect supporting the position of moral objectivity. Whether you reject the idea or not. Then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of objective morality, specifically insofar as it applies to slavery, is it not?I would consider the burden shared. Granted, many people blindly accept the idea of moral subjectivism, it’s still an assertion which requires demonstrable proof. I will not invoke such a burden on you however; I would rather discuss moral objectivism from a secular standpoint. When the layman pontificates about moral subjectivity as is the current trend, its due time to inspire some critical thought on the subject. I've demonstrated cases of slavery in areas where human morals have generally not been seen to apply.Human morals? Is there a reason to consider them exclusively human? I did not posit such a thing, do you consider that to be a position worth supporting? An animal does not gain informed consent from it's mate, but we don't consider it to be immoral the way we do when humans commit rape. An animal may kill another of its species over territory, food, or mates, and we don't consider it immoral the way we do when humans commit murder.As I mentioned, these acts are not considered moral when the party lacks the ability to comprehend right and wrong. The party is just not considered culpable the same way a human could be. An animal may enslave another animal, but suddenly we consider it immoral in the same way we do with human slavery? What?There has been no double standard; I haven’t suggested that it was moral to begin with. I pointed out in my last response that what I gave was just one example and I maintained that it is immoral even in the cases you presented.  And if you feel it is objectively wrong, you have a rather tough burden of proof to handle, I'd say.Not any more difficult than proving moral subjectivism I suppose. What would you consider acceptable proof anyway? A syllogism seems to be the only thing I could provide apart from citing other people’s views, hypotheticals, or anecdotes. It’s not exactly something which can be proved through empirical evidence.At any rate I don’t think arguing the differences between humans and other animals to be on the right track to understanding moral objectivism.