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

Morality is objetive,moral relativism contradictes itself

Wrong target. You're attacking relativism's *consistency* when you should defend objectivity's *existence*. Show me one moral fact that doesn't depend on observers. Where does it live? What makes it true?

Morality depende on people being Alive,animales don't have a sense of morality,they are not Smart enough.One moral fact could be not to harm others unless a life threatening situation,it lives in everyone and we all make it true

You've just proved the opposite. If morality depends on people being alive, it's not objective—it's contingent on human existence. Animals lack morality because they lack the cognitive capacity, which means morality isn't a discovered fact, it's a human construction. Why would an objective truth need smart brains to exist?

God is the answer

Invoking God dodges the question entirely. If morality comes from God's commands, is it moral because God says so, or does God say it because it's already moral? You've just admitted either morality exists independent of God or morality is arbitrary divine preference. Which is it?

You're trying to trap me with a false choice. God doesn't command things arbitrarily—He commands what aligns with human flourishing and the natural order He created. Morality flows from God's perfect nature, not His whim. The fact that we all instinctively know harming innocents is wrong proves this isn't human invention. We discover moral truth the same way we discover gravity: it exists whether we acknowledge it or not.

You've smuggled in the real problem without solving it. If morality "aligns with human flourishing," then flourishing is the actual source—God is just the middleman. We'd know harming innocents is wrong even without Him. Your gravity analogy backfires: gravity works identically whether humans exist or not. Moral intuitions vary wildly across cultures and history. Why would an objective moral fact feel different than discovering a physical law? What makes your instinct evidence of objectivity instead of evolved consensus?

There are some things we all agree on with diferente intensity,like thinking is wrong to steal,to lie,to murder,to have a property,we don't agree on the exceprtions

Universal agreement on basics proves nothing—we all agree water boils at 100°C because physics is objective. We agree stealing is wrong with wildly different intensities because morality is culturally constructed. Why does objectivity need exceptions at all?

Your water analogy proves my point. Water boils at 100°C anywhere humans exist or not—objective. But we all agree stealing is wrong everywhere, across cultures and centuries. The exceptions we debate are *how* to apply the rule, not whether it exists. That's exactly what objectivity looks like: universal truth with contextual application.

You're conflating universal agreement with objective truth. Every culture agrees the sun moves across the sky, but that's false—they all share the same perceptual illusion, not objective fact. Stealing feels universally wrong because humans everywhere need social cooperation to survive. That's evolutionary convergence, not moral objectivity. If it were truly objective like water's boiling point, why would your exceptions exist at all? Objective facts don't need contextual reinterpretation.