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

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. On the contrary; for something to be objectively wrong, there would need to be objective criteria as to why it is wrong. Is there any objective reason that a creatures sentience means that its own wellbeing trumps that of nonsentient creatures? I assert that sentient creatures have the capability to place their wellbeing over that of others, not any kind of entitlement to do so.Who says it’s not immoral?I'll acknowledge that I've only heard a few people specifically assert that such is not immoral, for whatever combination of reasons, but I've never heard anyone make the assertion that such is immoral, much less seen a case made for establishing that moral status.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.Do we truly have the capacity to truly comprehend right and wrong on the level you suggest? Do we actually have any agency over our choices, actions, opinions, or knowledge? I believe that I have free will, but I freely acknowledge that there is no evidence to support this, and that what evidence is available suggests otherwise strongly (although not quite conclusively). Human intelligence aside, I do know a bit about animal intelligence- and our understanding of it is that it is far from a binary thing. It's not 'intelligent' or 'unintelligent,' it's 'how intelligent.' 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 morality, as well as highly suggestive of morality being an evolutionary adaptation, rather than being rooted in some kind objective truth.I 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.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.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 have to disagree on the shared burden. Objective morality and Subjective morality do not represent a dichotomy. 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. The existence (or lack thereof) of objective morality does not have any bearing on whether subjective morality exists. If objective morality exists, those whos subjective morals don't match up are in violation of the objective morality. If objective morality doesn't exist, then... they aren't.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.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?Well, as I noted and touched on again later, we may not hold animals to the same moral standard that we hold ourselves, but pack animals themselves have something akin to morality and discipline, discouraging unwanted and detrimental behaviors when displayed. Our concept of morality is most likely this same basic structure, with a lot more hardware behind it (so to speak).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.I already touched on this before; I'll match your 'see above' and call.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.I don't necessarily disagree with you that it's wrong- but I believe that the assessment of it is innately subjective, I don't believe there is an objective standard to speak of here.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.You know, put it like that... That's tough. I mean, it's not as if I can imagine any sort of prediction you can make, predicated on the existence of objective morality, that would be able to actually control for subjective morality as a factor. This seems like a topic that is neither provable nor falsifiable. More philosophical in nature, which doesn't detract from it being an interesting topic in the slightest, but possible makes this type of debate format a poor medium in which to explore it.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.Perhaps, but exploring these differences certainly has some potential for improving our understanding of morality, wouldn't you agree?