Argument from Conscience

[Pyrrho]

Neither of those results proves that there is an obligation to follow one's conscience.

Do you acknowledge moral obligations of any kind and if so why?

Probably not in the sense that you want there to be moral obligations.

My guess is that our disagreement on morality is a matter of what morality is, not so much whether there is morality or not.  But, and this is the important bit for the present purposes, this means I probably do not believe in what you are calling "morality."  In other words, we likely agree that murder is wrong, but we likely do not agree on what that means.  (In practice, the theoretical difference in meaning is likely not terribly important, as we both are likely inclined to not commit murder, regardless of the theoretical underpinnings.)

TRJF is giving something that is at least an approximation of what I think on this topic, so I will not bother with explaining further at this time.  If you want a long explanation of what I think about what morality is, you can read David Hume's Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, as I believe he is essentially correct in what he states there.  For something in between in length, you can read some of my posts on this subject from another thread (the first one by itself might be adequate):

#17

#35

#45

#49

#52

#83