Morality is an objective truth

However, if con can agree, I believe we can keep the issues of God and religion out of this debate entirely. Opener: I believe we all have a moral compass. We see, even in our own language, references to the idea of an objective morality. People often refer to it when they tell us we ought to do what is “right”, or that we should be “good” people. They typically leave it at that, with no further directions so that we could understand what they meant by “right” and “good”. Rather, it is expected that we understand what is meant by these statements. This directive is understood whether it is explained further or not. In fact this statement would be understood, whether I told it to you or to someone across the world, to mean nearly the same thing. A cultural difference is nearly insignificant. Besides our own experiences, there are other factors that point to a universal morality that is outside of our society and culture. Morality throughout the Ages: The vast majority of cultures have accepted the same moral laws. Such as bans on murder, theft, rape, etc. If we are looking at this from the perspective that morality is subjective, isn't it rather odd that so many societies have constructed the same moral laws? Furthermore, the virtues expressed by classic philosophers are nearly word for word the same as the virtues that are supported as good today. For instance, selfishness is bad, serving others is considered good, etc. . Again, if we look at this from the perspective that morality is subjective, it is a crazy coincidence that we have the same moral principles as those who lived 23 hundred years ago. (I referenced Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates in the second link under the heading “Morality throughout the Ages” below). A special note: There are certain gray areas that exist in the topic of morality. For instance; is it okay to lie to someone about the way they look so you don't hurt their feelings? Is it okay to torture someone in order to save the life of another? This more murky area of the distinction between right and wrong exists, but cannot be used to discount the idea of an objective morality. For example, there was a time that people believed the world was flat. They were confused by what they saw around them. However, their confusion did not make the world any less round. The world was still objectively round whether they believed it or not. People can get confused and miss the truth, but it does not change the truth. The Issue of Slavery: There are instances in history where people have decided to change something that was beneficial to society in order to follow a moral principle. Slavery is one of those instances. Let me explain. The economic backbone of the south in the times before slavery was abolished in the U. S. was the slave trade. They provided free production and work from plantations to housework. Once this was abolished, the economy in the south suffered, which in turn hurt the economy in the north. If morality is based off a societal construct that is supposed to benefit society, why this change? If not an effort to become a more moral and virtuous society, what could it be? Modern Debates of Issues Dealing with Morality: There are several debates that deal in the area of morality in our society today. But in this portion of my opening arguments I'm going to delve into one; abortion. The purpose for this is to show that, though there are two sides to this moral issue, the proponents of each side aren't in contradiction concerning moral principles. With abortion, for example, neither side believes that killing innocent life is morally acceptable. Unless there is a psychopath among those involved, both sides would agree killing innocent life is bad, even evil. Pro-lifers will site the right to life every human has, pro-choicers won't disagree with them, they just don't believe the embryo in the womb is to be considered life. Rather, they site the intrinsic right to privacy every human has. You see, even in disagreements dealing with morality, basic moral principles aren't disagreed upon. Rather, the debate is on whether or not the subject conflicts with a basic moral principle. Conclusion: There is much evidence to support the idea of an objective morality that we are all ingrained with and aware of. The intrinsic desire of each of us to be a righteous and virtuous person can be shown throughout history and is present within our minds. Indeed, if con would state that morality is subjective rather than objective the following must be conceded: Slavery, rape, murder, and pedophilia are not “bad”, for what is “bad” if “good” is completely subjective? A society can just as easily support these as reject them if it suits their interests. The U. S. was wrong in condemning what the Nazi's were doing to the Jews, Catholics, and homosexuals. The Nazi society did not consider it to be a moral evil. If no objective morality exists, how can a society tell another what they're doing is wrong? Con has listed in the “beliefs” section of his profile that others should be able to do what they want as long as it does not harm others. If no objective morality exists, it has to be conceded that there is nothing objectively wrong with harming others. If that other person believes it's okay to harm another for whatever reason, con's moral principle cannot trump his. Whew, I had no idea this was so time consuming. Over to you con! References: Morality throughout the Ages: . https://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.iep.utm.edu... The Issue of Slavery: . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... . http://faculty.weber.edu...