Morality is objective

Thanks to my opponent for the quick response. My apologies if I misinterpreted the debate format, I thought that Round 1 was only for acceptance. In any case, let’s begin. I will divide my entry into two parts. First, I will offer several arguments in support of objective morality. Second, I will provide a brief rebuttal of Con’s opening statement. My opponent and I have agreed to define morality as “how we categorize whether certain actions are good or bad.” Additionally, we have agreed to define objectivity as something that remains true regardless of popular agreement (I hope Con does not mind this paraphrase). Therefore, it follows that if we combined our terms “objectivity” and “morality,” the definition would read: “a categorization of good/bad/right/wrong that remains true regardless of popular agreement.” Under such a definition, it is virtually undeniable that morality is objective.We observe that right and wrong is categorized according to an objective standard in many ways. One of these ways is the legal system. The American legal system, for example, legislates numerous moral issues such as murder, divorce, theft, and sexual misconduct. These issues are adjudicated according to an objective standard (the law) regardless of how judges, juries, or societies personally feel about them. For example, in 1993 a man named Daniel Driver was charged with molesting five boys. The mother of one of the boys, Ellie Nesler, shot and killed him as she approached the witness stand on April 4th. Many people across the nation praised her actions and even claimed that she deserved a medal [1]. Despite all this however, she was still sentenced to 10 years in prison. In another example, a jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the murder of Trayvon Martin even though many people believed he was guilty. These are just two of many examples that demonstrate how we determine right and wrong based on an objective standard, not our personal feelings. Another area we observe this in is our sense of basic human rights (and even animal rights). We believe all people have at least some right to life, health, and happiness. For example, we feel wronged if someone takes our parking spot, cuts us in line, or gossips behind our back. Why do we feel this? If morality is subjective, we would have no concrete reason to be upset by these activities because we have no objective rights. This principle is more pronounced if taken to its logical extreme. Raping babies, molesting children, and torturing animals is not wrong in a subjectively moral world. They are simply activities pursued by people who feel like doing them – no different from people who feel like planting trees or writing novels. In order to refute the existence of moral objectivity, my opponent must accept that we live in such a world. Conversely, I submit that we all sense some activities are wrong across every culture and that this is a demonstration of objective morality’s existence. Now for rebuttals:First, my opponent is faced with the interesting dilemma of defending subjectivity with objective statements. Saying “I do not believe morality is objective” is an objective claim. As we defined, objective claims are true regardless of disagreement. Con is attempting to argue that moral subjectivity is truer than moral objectivity despite my disagreement. Every rebuttal Con makes during this debate is an appeal to the very objectivity they are trying to reject.Con suggests that morality is impossible to define or demonstrate. Let's examine this claim. It is true that morality is not a tangible object that one can see, touch, or measure. No one has ever tripped over a moral principle laying on the ground. But just because something is intangible does not mean it is impossible to demonstrate or observe. Consider gravity for example. Gravity is an invisible force that we cannot see, taste, or smell. We know it exists, however, because we can see it in action. We toss a ball up and watch it hit the ground. Gravity's hold on other objects displays its existence. Similarly, morality is an invisible force that takes hold of human actions and motivations. As I pointed out in the first part, we observe objective morality at work in our legal system. We also observe objective morality manipulate our sense of basic human rights and common decency. Just like a ball cannot help hitting the ground, we cannot help feeling angry when a baby is abused. In conclusion, I submit that the examples we find in legal systems, common sense human dignity, and the very existence of this debate display an objective morality that, while elusive, exists nonetheless.[1] http://www.nytimes.com...