Morality is an objective truth

I love debates that can remain civil and believe con has proved more than a worthy adversary. However, con and I have both recognized that since his opening arguments were forgotten, he has a slight advantage in that he will be able to rebuttal my arguments posted in this round, but not I his. In light of this, we both have agreed we'd make this aware to the voters and allow them to judge based on their own decisions. Now to con's argument: Con and the Story of the Feral Children: Con starts off his rebuttal with a reference to a story about two feral children who became like wolves. He states at the end of the story that these children, who grew apart from human society, did not have human morality, but instead had morals similar to that of a wolf. Background: This very rare scenario is not unknown to the psychiatric world. They address it as “Clinical Lycanthropy”, which involves “. .. a delusional belief that the affected person is, or has, transformed into an animal. ” As the story stated, this disorder affects the human mind and instinct. I believe this refers back to the argument I made about psychological disorders in the previous round. Those that have impeded mind and reason cannot be necessarily expected to hold to objective truths such as morality. If these people can deny the reality of their biology, or their human nature, why then should we hold them to the same standard as the rational when it comes to morality? Con's Referral back to the Slavery Argument: Here my opponent asks, “if someone attempts to justify killing, I. E. war, does that make war immoral by default? ” (referring to my argument about society attempting to justify slavery) This is an excellent point made by my opponent. The short answer would simply be no, but let me explain. Killing in combat is to murder in the same way that indentured servants is to slavery. We can justify war casualties by the reasons for the war (IE. a defensive war), but we cannot justify a man who slaughters innocents on a playground. In this same way, indentured servants worked for money loaned to them, in order to pay it off. This can be justified. However slavery based on race or supposed inferiority cannot be justified. This is why society has always distinguished between murder and war casualties, slavery and indentured servitude. Con on Rape: Here con states that I (pro) stated a man could not rape his wife or another man. And that non-consensual sex with your wife was considered moral. I believe there may be a misunderstanding. I did not state a man could not rape his wife or another man, but rather that is all the definition of the word rape implied at the time. It did not imply that raping your wife or another man was moral or thereby accepted. I extend my challenge from the last round for con to find a society that states it is not immoral but moral for a man to rape his wife (or another man). Con's Comments on the Choice of Morality: Con states I misunderstood his argument in the previous round. He states if people do not follow an objective moral code, it serves the same purpose as a subjective moral code. In my original argument I compared human morality to human instinct. It is a reality that is not binding, but present, in the same way our human instinct is. However I disagree with my opponent in his assertion that an objective morality that is not binding makes no difference at all. I believe it's similar to saying a human instinct that is not binding makes no difference at all. For example, fear is considered a human instinct. It helps us to avoid physical and emotional injury, as well as potential death. This human instinct is undeniably present, though it it not binding. We do not have to adhere to it. In the same way morality is present but unbinding. It does not have to be followed, but has influenced us greatly, as evidenced throughout history (refer to opening arguments). Con on People who have no Morals, Continued: My opponent points out that the difference is we know with certainty that those people do have limbs, we don't know for certain that there is an objective morality. A good point con. Here he points out the flaw in my analogy. Though I'd argue that we are all aware of an objective morality, I'll agree that this was by no means a perfect analogy. But it wasn't really meant to be. It was used, instead, to point out the flaw in con's argument. If there are people who believe that their limbs are not theirs, but this doesn't change the objectivity of human biology, how then can the fact that there are people with disorders that impede them from seeing morality, change the objectivity of morality? Con on the US and Nazi Germany: Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. Instead of the focus on the US, let's try this: To state that one moral code is superior to another implies that there is a moral code which is ultimate. For this reason, the below must be conceded. [What the Nazi's did was not objectively wrong. Their actions were not evil, for what is evil if good is subjective? Indeed, the Nazi's actions could even be considered good if a society were to deem it as such. ] Final Conclusion: Throughout this debate my opponent and I have discussed many topics dealing with the objectivity of morality. From cultures throughout the ages, to mental disorders, I believe the best explanation for what we have observed is an objective morality. An objective morality that is not binding, but has similar characteristics to our own human instincts. A morality that we are all subconsciously aware of, but have the ability to choose whether to follow. Take us home con! References: Clinical Lycanthropy: . http://www.monstropedia.org... Indentured Servants: . http://www.pbs.org... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Human Fear: . http://news.discovery.com...