Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

misrepresenting my repliesYou said "doesn't mean we know what they all are" intonating hiddenness and when I said I would expect objective morality to be more prevalent, you said "It is".Thus my question of whether you consider it both prevalent and hidden - am I missing something here?? I will back off and leave you to your stage.Grow up.As we approach questions which have measurable effectsSee below at 'measure'.When you ask different moral questionsI didn't ask different moral questions - you presented an attempt at an example of an objectively moral action, and I showed there was an exception."deformity" in this regard would be a medical diagnosis.'deformity' is not a single boolean attribute, but a perceived distance from a norm.clubbed foot, down syndrome, anencephaly, or an extra pinky toe all may count as deformity to some degree. Each one might influence the question differently.If they were based on subjective perception then that would suggest subjective morality and this debate would be over.Indeed, seemingly self-evident statements tend to be less than useful in ending debates on this site.all are measurable qualities which could be verified and examined to arrive at an objective answer regardless of (subjective) perception.See below at 'measure'.I don’t have to name all possible answers to all of life’s moral questions in order to posit the existence of moral objectivityI am not asking for "all", only "any". I believe I have addressed every one you have presented thus far.I assume that is what you understand “universal/objective” to imply?I consider objective morality basically to be morality outside human ontology.you seem to feel the need to randomly insert themI used them as adjectives and everything. Maybe you should explain why you think they are not used properly.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 think natural selection produced survival, not morality - keep in mind that it also produced all animal actions which you might consider immoral: rape, slavery, eating the young, etc.Who is to say "objectively" that human survival for an individual, group, or as a whole is an unqualified "good"? If your goal was maximizing life, you might think that human destruction of other species and their environments might not be "good".I also don’t assert such a requirement need exist to posit moral objectivism.What do you assert is required exactly?The usefulness becomes apparent when we recognize that moral questions which potentially affect the outcome of our behavior can be answeredIs there some moral question that you can claim to answer?measure:more than just the questions of perspective like who is doing or interpreting the measurements - which would eventually need to be dealt with, the most important thing to remember every time you use the word measure is that more than just measurement is needed. You need to be able to show how any measurement advances toward a specified moral. The goal is antecedent to the measurement.Minimizing pain, maximizing happiness, preserving life, the most for the greatest number, (or for scientologist: the most for the greatest number "of dynamics"), etc. These goals will inevitably run counter to each other (or even be internally at odds).