Objective Morality Necessitates a Higher Being

Response to I: Definition of objective (according to dictionary.reference.com): "Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." According to this definition, objective morality is morality which exists beyond each individual. It is the theoretical moral Truth. It is distinguished from subjective morality in that it is concrete, absolute, and irrefutable. Subjective morality differs with each individual and depends on his or her personal beliefs, not a comprehensive Truth which applies to all. In this light, it is apparent that objective morality is in fact beyond human comprehension. The part of this definition that seems inconsistent with my argument is that objective Truth is not personal, and therefore, would not be derived from a person. However, the higher being of which I speak is not a person. This very fact is what would allow such an Entity to conceive a morality that is objective. I apologize for ambiguity on the concept of what constitutes a "higher being" but that is another exceptionally complex issue in and of itself. Suffice to say that such a being would have an expanded understanding of morality such that it is not a person at all and can consider morality on the objective scale, beyond personal bias and inclination. Response to II: Again, I apologize for the ambiguity of "higher being" but the denotation of the phrase is for the time being impossible to assign. Characteristic I attribute to such a being as to which I refer for this argument"s sake are an expanded understanding of the universe and the morality which may or may not underlie it. As higher being, it does not have personal values, but rather a perspective which allows it a comprehensive understanding of Truth. This is how it maintains inherent "otherness." Humans do not have this kind of capacity. The higher being of which I speak is not "like us." It is more, and as my argument asserts, must be for objective morality to exist. We must be careful not to anthropomorphize when considering such a being. It does not have opinions on issues as humans do, it has definitive answers. It does not think, it knows. If it knows that massacring felines is the morally correct, it is morally correct. Its authority lies in the very knowledge which grants it the power to conceive objective morality. You contend that intelligence does not yield authority. In many cases, it does not. Even if you dazzle a moronic policeman (I am not implying policemen are moronic but proposing a theoretical individual policeman) with the most intelligent, articulate argument he has heard, if you are driving above the speed limit he has the authority to punish you. However, authority only exists when circumstances provide it by placing one entity in a place of power above another entity. In this specific issue, the higher being has the absolute authority in the field of morality because it knows the theoretical Truth, which encapsulates objective morality. It understands that which humans do not. Whether or not you believe in objective morality (moral relativism considering all subjective morality as equal has its appeal), it does not make sense to deny that a being that understands a morality which is above personal beliefs, and therefore applies to all and is true to all, does not have absolute authority on the issue of morality. If the being understood such a morality, the morality could be denied by none simply by its definition as above personal beliefs. Objective morality denotes Truth above human belief, which would be accepted by all. Were it not ubiquitous and unanimously accepted, it would be subjective morality which applies to only some. In this way, the being has ultimate authority regarding morality because he knows the Truth, and the Truth applies to all. Response to III: Trying to impose time and chronology on such a higher being is a classic instance of human audacity compelling the belief that even a being recognized as above ourselves is constrained by the same laws we are. The being may be omniscient and exist apart from time itself. It, as well as objective morality, may just exist; just be, unconstrained by time. Therefore, neither would come before the other. They would both just exist. It is impossible for our minds to fully understand that which does not exist in the physical world which is all we have known, but if something transcends such a world, it makes sense that we would not be able to understand it or the laws under which it operates, just like we cannot fully understand what existence beyond time would resemble. However, the point of arguments such as this to me is not to simply disarm the opponent but rather to fortify intellect, broaden perspective, and develop mutual understanding. Therefore (and of course because it is a compelling argument), I will follow your train of thought. You ask, "Is something good because the higher being prefers it, or does the higher being prefer it because it's good already?" I say, objective morality exists simultaneously to the higher being. It is dependent upon the existence of the being, but the being cannot exist without it. Consider this simplified example: the laws of physics. Laws of physics do not exist independently of physical matter. Without a subject to govern, both objective morality and the laws of physics are nonexistent. However, these subjects do not exist without that which governs them. Physical matter does not exist independently of the laws of physics which governs it. This is not because physical matter "prefers" these laws and conceives them, but because they are factual realities. Likewise, a higher being which understands the Truth does not exist apart from objective morality or "prefer" it, it simply exists hand in hand with the being. This also explains that such an objective morality is not an arbitrary moral code or a preference but rather ubiquitous and inherent fact. Now for my response to the final paragraph of III. Objective morality stems from the being. Objective morality dictates what is "right" and what is "wrong." You argue that if the being is inherently good that there is in fact no "right" or "wrong" because the being is uniquely right and therefore there is nothing to which he can be compared, if I read the paragraph as you intended it. However, I never contended that the being is good or bad, just that he understands the difference. Response to IV: It seems quite apparent to me that objective morality has not been communicated to humanity, at least not in its entirety. If it had, its inherent, objective truth, which by denotation transcends our personal inclinations and beliefs, would be so alluring and irrefutable to all to the point that it could not be denied. It is the characteristic of applying to everything that makes such morality objective. You assert that because objective morality does not seem to appear in humanity means that it does not originate from a higher being, otherwise there would be a means of communicating this knowledge. You also claim that if such communication does not exist, the morality which would be communicated is superfluous. However, this is a flawed assumption on several levels. First of all, consider that the morality may not be superfluous if it cannot be communicated to humanity because humanity may be, in the broader scheme of things, irrelevant. If the "higher being" does not really care about humanity, and there is more reason to assume this is the case than that he does (this is another wonderfully complex argument that I do not have time to pursue), then why would it care to communicate the intricacies of morality to us? I would love to keep going but I'm out of characters. This doesn't leave much room for a conclusion, but hopefully these responses supplemented by my introductory remarks create a sufficiently compelling argument. Thank you very much for participating with me in this debate.