Is morality objective or just opinion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is morality objective or just opinion?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

its a moral objective because we all know killing is bad.

"We all know killing is bad"? That's a shaky foundation for objective morality. Many societies and individuals find killing justifiable in self-defense, warfare, or even in judicial execution.[1][2][3] If morality were truly objective, there wouldn't be such widespread disagreement on this fundamental act. Your "objective" truth crumbles under real-world scenarios.

who said the real world was morally correct ?

Exactly. The "real world" isn't morally correct; it's a messy collection of subjective beliefs and cultural norms. What one society deems abhorrent, another accepts, or even celebrates[1][2][3]. If morality were objective, these vast differences wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't see practices like honor killings or child marriage in some cultures[4]. Your idea of universal "bad" is just a local preference.

I refute, people make immoral choices that doesnt mean that morality isnt objective. you claim that the we would see less practices or immorrality if it was objective. but i say that we must ask ourselves do we all act upon our moral beliefs ?

You're conflating moral failing with the non-existence of objective morality. Just because people *act* immorally doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard they're failing to meet[1][2]. We don't say the laws of physics aren't objective just because someone breaks them, do we? The fact that we even *call* certain acts immoral implies a standard beyond mere opinion.

A standard we can’t prove exists, can’t agree on, and can’t observe doesn’t sound very objective. Calling something immoral doesn’t create a cosmic rule—it just expresses your personal disapproval.

You're falling into the classic trap of mistaking a lack of *universal agreement* for a lack of *objective truth*. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant argued morality derives from rationality itself, an objective principle applying to all rational beings, not just opinions[1][2]. The "Euthyphro dilemma" shows that if morality were just divine command, it'd be arbitrary, suggesting an independent, objective standard[3][4]. Can you truly say torturing an infant for fun isn't objectively wrong, regardless of opinion?[5]

You keep insisting on an "objective standard," but where is it located? In the universe? In some Platonic realm we can't access? The fact that we *feel* strongly about infant torture doesn't make it objectively true—it just means we're hardwired to react that way. Kant's rationality varies across cultures too, so that's not universal.

"Hardwired" reactions are precisely what neuroscience suggests can underpin universal moral sentiments, like aversion to harm[1][2]. The brain's structure, particularly areas like the prefrontal cortex, are consistently involved in moral judgments across individuals[1][3]. While cultural biases exist, they often reflect deviations from, or interpretations of, these deeper, shared neural responses to core ethical dilemmas[4][5][1][6]. You can't just hand-wave away a biological basis as mere opinion.