Morality Is Subjective

I will show how this fits in later, but now to my opening arguments. Affirmations 1. Law of Nature There is an objective morality that everyone understands including children and adults in the words of C. S. Lewis It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. [1] In this case he was talking about two people quarrelling, but he shows you can never say someone was wrong unless there is a standard by which you measure all moral actions. If Morality is Subjective then there is no right or wrong because there is no standard for measuring morality, but we each have a moral standard, showing us that morality is more objective than subjective. 2. Common Morality This is also a response to A2: Morality is variable I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. [1] In the book Abolition of Man in the appendix there are many examples of showing how morality has been the same. One of the examples is Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors. "'Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, your mother an image of the Earth. For him who fails to honour them, every work of piety is in vain. This is the first duty. ' (Hindu. Janet, i. 9) 'Has he despised Father and Mother? ' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 464) 'Honour thy Father and thy Mother. ' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:12) 'To care for parents. ' (Greek. List of duties in Epictetus, in. vii) 'Children, old men, the poor, and the sick should be considered as the lords of the atmosphere. ' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8) 'Rise up before the hoary head and honour the old man. ' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:32) 'I tended the old man, I game him my staff. ' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 437) 'You will see them take care . .. of old men. ' (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v. 437) 'I have not taken away the oblations of the blessed dead. ' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul ERE v. 478) 'When proper respects towards the dead is shown at the end and continued after they are far away, the moral force of a people has reached its highest point. ' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 9)" [2] Morality is similar throughout history on various topics that was just one example. This shows that Morality more objective than subjective. 3. Animals This is also a partial response to A4: Morality is man-made and a partial response to A5: Morality is evolved Morality is what allows for organization because without an objective morality, there are no rights or order, but we will get to that later. Animals that travel in packs or live in hives follow a moral standard too. Such as wolves travel in packs, but there are rules in that pack on certain things such as a leader, or in bee hives where each has a duty to work, since it would be immoral to not work and gain benefits yet, these animals are not deciding what morality fits them best. Showing in nature, animals experience morality shows that there is an objective morality. 4. Kant This is also a response to A1: The hiddenness of objective morality Immanual Kant proposed the idea that our rationality lets us understand the objective morality. He is one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He had an unbreakable moral standard called the categorical imperative. He believes most people were an absolutist, but just didn't fully understand the reason behind it which is what gave him his moral system Objections 1. Human Rights Human rights are saying that violating these acts are always wrong or immoral. As an example, the right to life. No matter what the case no one has a right to murder someone else, but if morality is subjective then murder is not inherently wrong. Further, if Morality is subjective, there is no such thing as human rights. Further, you could never convict anyone of a crime because you can never say they did anything wrong. 2. Logically Consistent As shown earlier, you cannot judge something right or wrong unless you have a standard, but my opponent believes morality is subjective. That means there is no set standard, so when he says "It's a shame" he is giving a moral opinion. Giving a moral opinion while being a moral subjectivist is contradictory. Here is a youtube video to explain it further . http://www.youtube.com... Responses 1. Triangles This is a partial response to A4: Morality is man-made Yes, Morality is a concept, but so is triangles because there are no triangles in the natural world. There are triangular shapes, but no exact triangles. It would then conclude "The word 'triangle' is a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in our minds. If there is no consciousness, then there is no triangles. " ; therefore, triangles are subjective. This is just absurd, so in a world of just rocks there are such things as morality and rocks there are just no conscious agents to comprehend them. 2. Evolution This is a response to A5: Morality is evolved If Evolution is true, then it undermines its own argument. 1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes. 2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes. 3. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred 4. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence. 5. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism. This shows that if evolution is true, then no belief is rationally inferred; therefore, the belief that Morality is Subjective is nonrational. 3. Correct Moral Behavior This is a response to A3: You cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' Kant's objective morality is descriptive, and tells how morality is. There is no obligation to adhere to it like there is no obligation to beleive triangles have three sides, but to do otherwise would contridictory to facts. There is usually an objective reason to follow it such as that it is usually against the law. Sources [1] . http://lib.ru... [2] . https://archive.org...