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

For something to be objectively wrong, there would need to be objective criteria as to why it is wrong.For anything to be wrong, there would need to be some basis to place that assertion. The basis for objective morality is the same for that of subjective morality; the well being of thinking creatures. This is what anyone is ultimately alluding to when talking about “right” and “wrong.”Proponents of subjective morality argue that morals are ideas of right and wrong which are made different depending on perception. Proponents of objective reality argue that what is right or wrong can be tested and studied to arrive at moral facts. What is true of physical health in terms of what is healthy and unhealthy is not taken for granted. Cancer is still cancer regardless of what culture the ill person grew up in. Similarly, what is right or wrong in regard to societal well being can be measured and tested to arrive at moral facts. Is there any objective reason that a creatures sentience means that its own wellbeing trumps that of nonsentient creatures?Any reason you mean? It seems as though you assume there’s a substantial difference from that of subjective reasoningI think on closer examination you will discover that the two are referring to the same thing as far as the basis and reasoning behind the subject of morality. One simply asserts that what is moral is relative to the individual.To answer your question; I'm not is suggesting that sentience is superior to non-sentience. It’s just that the well being of thinking creatures is what we base answers of right or wrong on. Even when non-sentient creatures are involved (such as deforestation or flu vaccines) the basis of morality is in regard to how these things potentially affect sentient life positively or negatively.I assert that sentient creatures have the capability to place their wellbeing over that of others, not any kind of entitlement to do so.I’m not sure I understand your sentiment here; I don’t believe it’s a matter of entitlement. Perhaps we have different views on what constitutes thinking creatures. I think I agree that sentient would be an accurate synonym but I’m not sure if you have a different meaning.When I say thinking creatures I mean life forms with the ability to think, not necessarily conscious or aware but enough to warrant consideration. Non-thinking life or non-sentient life to me would be plants, animals without brains, single celled organisms, etc.Do we truly have the capacity to truly comprehend right and wrong on the level you suggest?I’m not sure what you mean by “the level you suggest,” I wasn’t aware that I was suggesting any level of comprehension that hasn’t already been mutually understood or agreed upon. Morality is not hard to comprehend; small toddlers and even some animals understand the concept. Specific issues may require some higher level of comprehension but it is well within the ability of an average person’s intelligence.Do we actually have any agency over our choices, actions, opinions, or knowledge?While I believe they are thoroughly influenced by numerous causal factors, I believe we do have the ability to consider these things in a practical way, yes. In every non-solitary species, there is some form of corrective or disciplinary action taken by the herd (or its equivalent) in the event of undesired behavior; this is strongly supportive of subjective moralityIn what way is this supportive of subjective morality? as well as highly suggestive of morality being an evolutionary adaptation, rather than being rooted in some kind objective truth.I’m not sure if you understand the implications of this. If morality is an evolutionary adaptation, wouldn’t it then be based on an objective quality? Would you say there is an advantage of survival in the ability of a life form to have morals? Would that advantage increase depending on how effectively those morals protect and nurture the well being of the constituents? Couldn’t we examine behaviors within a society and discover demonstrable facts in regard the negative or positive effects of these behaviors? Not exactly. I believe it is wrong under any and all circumstances because I find the concept itself utterly repulsive. This is based on my own subjective opinion, not some sort of objective truth. I'm not so arrogant as to think that my own concept of whats right and wrong is applicable to everyone else under all of their circumstances- which isn't to say that you are, just so we're clear. My morals are my own, and their specifics simply don't work for most others.Its not a matter of arrogance to assert that a demonstrably damaging act be considered immoral. I argue that the specifics of your morals would work for others if they demonstrated to preserve the well being of others. It is already known and demonstrable that subjective morality exists; this very debate we've had is demonstrative of that. The existence of subjective morality is not under question here, and if it was, it's already been proven.How so?I understand that its not under question, but if it has already been proved I don’t suppose it would be too much to ask. If objective morality exists, those whos subjective morals don't match up are in violation of the objective morality.Agreed. In other words, they would be considered immoral, or not acting or thinking in accordance with good morals. I don't need to prove subjective morality exists; it does exist, that's already proven, and that doesn't make the existence of objective morality an impossibility. The only thing under question here is whether or not objective morality exists; subjective morality is only relevant to the topic insofar as I believe what you call objective is in fact subjective.It doesn’t matter how often it gets repeated, saying “it just is” is not proof.I acknowledge that this debate only asked about objective morality but you have since asserted that morals are subjective and invoked the burden of proof on me for my argument. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest both parties be subject to the burden of proof where assertions have been made without any justification. And I think that if you try you might understand why it’s a somewhat dishonest request due to the philosophical nature of the discussion. I suppose I could construct some polysyllogism but I must ask how much weight will that actually carry as far as proof?