Morals are objective.

My opponent started his argument off with a quote of my words, and then quickly insulted them. I said this: "As I said earlier, morality is concerned with the behavior if a being." My opponent then claimed that I was 'from the South' and implied that spell-check was the only reason I appeared fluent in English. Notice that if you change the word 'if' to the word 'of' then the sentence makes perfect sense. The reason why I wrote 'if' was because I made a typing error. The 'i' is directly next to the 'o', and whilst typing I pressed the wrong key and didn't realize it. So I would just like to make it clear that I am very fluent in English, that people from the South (which I actually am) don't talk like the stereotypical rednecks, and finally that I simply made a typing error. Now that this is out of the way, let's go on to the points that actually affect the debate. *You aren't affirming the opposite* My opponent does not seem to understand the argument, and I'm not so sure that he ever will. So, I'll restate it in a way that he promotes, which is to find why our two views are opposites. Objective morality declares that people should behave in a certain way REGARDLESS OF SITUATION. Situational morality (hence the name) declares that a person should behave in a way ACCORDING TO THE SITUATION. As you can see, my opponent's view does NOT use the situation, and CAN'T include it, while my view necessitates the situation. These are obviously OPPOSITE views. Because they are opposite, it should be clear to my opponent that I am not affirming objective morality, but directly clashing with the view. *Situations and Doctrine* I stated earlier that I didn't understand some of my opponent's points, and this is another one I don't quite understand what he is saying. Perhaps he is saying that the doctrine declaring the moral law declares when it is ok to do certain actions. While this is probably true, and it is objective law, it does not make the morals within objective. In fact, if the doctrine talks about what is wrong in what sense (as in it's wrong to kill a person for desire) then this accounts for the situation. Accounting for the situation makes it what kind of morality? That's right, situational morality. *Bumper sticker* Once again, my opponent tries to explain the argument. This time he states that objective moral law actually is infinitely complex, and covers all situations. This actually makes no sense. It's clearly situational. If morals were objective in the sense my opponent proposes, then there would be an infinite amount of morals (as per situation.) It's obvious that this can't be the case, as no human could ever be expected to know an infinite amount of moral/immoral actions. Morality concerns itself with how a being SHOULD behave. If that being can't learn all the laws, then that law could never be successful. So, objective morality isn't the optimal answer. Just in case that appeared as a non-sequitur, I'll write a syllogism. 1. Morality struggles do understand how a being(human) should optimally behave. 2. If there is an objective moral rule for every situation, and situations are infinite, then there is an infinite amount of moral rules. 3. No human can learn an infinite amount of anything. 4. If all the rules aren't understood, then the human might not know how to behave in many situations. 5. Optimally, a human should know how to behave in all situations. 6. Situational morality allows the human to choose based on a finite amount of obvious outcomes. 7. Situational morality allows for a human to ALWAYS know right and wrong, and therefore is more optimal then objective morality. *the moral is ALWAYS true then it is objective* Wrong. I just talked about this, but I'll summarize again. Morality deals with human behavior, and humans can't learn the infinity of situations that could happen. Because a human can't learn them, they can't behave by them. At least, not the kind of objective morality my opponent described, in which the answer to every situation is objective. *immoral act itself is ALWAYS immoral regardless of your ‘situation'.* Aha! Now my opponent is talking like an objective moralist! He stated that murder (killing with intent of heart) is ALWAYS WRONG. No matter what. I realize this next situation might be ridiculous, but it is nevertheless possible, and only situational morality can account for how to act. Situation: You are told to do A, or B will happen. A) Kill an innocent man. B) Every woman will die. So, in A, you are murdering someone, and if you choose not to murder him, you aren't actually doing anything. BUT, every woman on earth is going to die as a result of your choice. In this situation, the moral thing to do would be to act according to whatever will most likely bring the most favorable end. Which would be what? Ah yes, murdering the innocent man. *third option* Regarding my opponent showing his 'third option', I don't actually understand it at all. It sound just like what he was supposed to be affirming. So, either it WAS what he was supposed to be affirming and I refuted it OR it was unrelated and I had no duty to clash with it. *the affirmative case... in the third round out of four...* "As I showed in round two, Chaotic Morality is..." Once again, I am not advocating Chaotic Morality. I am not denying the existence of morality. I agree there is morality, I just believe that it's situational, and I have shown why. My opponent three paragraphs that supposedly 'proved' objective morality merely showed while morality exists. I agree that morality exists, as stated. So, my opponent has yet to show why Objective morality is preferable to Situational Morality. SUMMARY 1. Objective morality doesn't account for a situation. Situational does, and assures that the end will be a good one. 2. If there was a moral law for every situation that was unchanging, it would be up to the human to learn every single one of these infinite laws (which isn't possible) 3. Situational Morality conflicts the resolution, and has been shown to be more effective. That is the break down of the important parts of this debate, and that is why I urge you to vote Con. Thank you. PS, to my opponent. I wasn't insulting when I said English wasn't your first language. This is honestly what I thought. I apologize if I offended you.