There is an objective morality

“My opponent has unwittingly argued that morality must therefore be by definition subjective. When we call something objective we speak of it "having reality independent of the mind" (from my opponents own definition).”My argument involves the realization that objective-subjective distinctions make it a logical rule that an objective morality exists. This is well within the idea of “having reality independent of the mind”, which simply means that it is a framework that functions void of opinion. Or as the definition stated previous to that part: “in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers”.“For there to be objective morality, morals must exist physically or as descriptions of physical reality. Thus if mankind and all life capable of observation were destroyed the earth would still exist, the laws of logic would still exist …” “Everyone may have an opinion on what their ideal subjective experience is, what makes this opinion objective?”As a whole there seems to be some misconceptions functioning in this exchange, but what my argument truly entails is to point out that because of how objective-subjective distinctions work it is a logical rule that an objective morality exists. When con says “Everyone may have an opinion on what their ideal subjective experience is, what makes this opinion objective?” He must fail to realize that sciences like sociology and psychology are in fact in part based off of the very premise that there are objective facts to be known about subjective experience. Say “You are depressed” this very well could be an objective fact about your subjective experience. You could very well not be lying about being depressed, you could be less than naïve on what depression is, and might not be deluded in reference to your mental state. This I think you will see follows similarly with my argument. “You don’t want to be raped” could very well be an objective fact about your ideal subjective experience. You could very well not be lying about not wanting to be raped, you could be less than naïve on what rape is, and might not be deluded in what your ideal relation is with the concept of rape. “If morality can not survive the destruction of the observer then it does not exist objectively.”If my argument is correct well than an objective morality is a logical requirement because of the way objective-subjective distinctions work. My statement: “Imagine a universe with no subjective experience. Imagine a universe containing no conscious life. Then ask yourself could there be immorality in such a place? Pondering this question I think you’ll quickly realize that there couldn’t.” still would stand and correctly so. To illustrate this lets take con’s own example: “the universe does not care about the melting point of iron but it is still an objective fact.”This is true, but if we apply con’s same challenge to this statement we see that even iron’s melting point doesn’t hold up as an “objective fact”. Imagine a universe with no iron. Imagine a universe containing none of the element Fe. Then ask yourself could there be a melting point for iron in such a place? Pondering this question I think you’ll quickly realize that there couldn’t.“what if someone firmly believes that their ideal experience is to spend an evening in a brothel, having once done so they find themselves distraught realising belated it is a violation of their morality thus destroying any joy they may have?”I’m unsure how con thinks he has demonstrated grounds for dismissing contention 2 and 3. Is it not true that if you’re too naïve to know what your ideal subjective experience is, you than don’t really know with any accuracy what it would be if you were exposed to a given situation? (You’ve pointed this out in your example yourself I think) Is it not true that if you’re deluded you are than in no state to know what your ideal subjective experience really is? In fact if your too naïve to know what your ideal subjective experience is or deluded in reference to what your ideal subjective experience is it’s obvious that you don’t really know objectively what your ideal subjective experience is. I see no way in which to get past this reality.“…going with a friend to a bar is a better experience than staying at home and trimming my nasal hair. Does this therefore make going to the bar moral, and staying at home to trim my nasal hair amoral.”Nope by no means, If your desire to go to the bar with your friend overrides your desire to have your noise hair trimmed then that’s an objective fact to be know about your ideal subjective experience, while if your desire to have trimmed noise hairs did in fact override your desire to go to the bar with your friend then that would also be an objective fact to be known about your ideal subjective experience. In neither situation is there any kind of violation. “If this brings joy to the rapist and grief to the victim are both participants working within the same objective framework?”This is an excellent question that allows me to demonstrate further how my argument for an objective morality works.Consider the following:1. Bob is a clinical psychopath and very much objectively enjoys raping random people2. Jill is strolling by Bob’s apartment and objectively dislikes the idea of being rapedThe likely potential results will either be:1. Bob rapes JillOr2. Bob doesn’t rape JillNow con might argue that neither result 1 or 2 is any better than the other even when following my argument for an objective morality. In either case, con might say, an objectively ideal subjection experience will be violated. This I think is a lack of thinking fully. Notice first that both Bob and Jill can hold their own objectively ideal subjective experience referencing the idea of rape without being objectively immoral. (No objective violating of an objectively ideal subjective experience occurs without actual action) You’re not incurring a violation by simply thinking something. (Though different thoughts may hold higher and lesser risk factors for the potential of objective immorality occurring in the future)Result 2 has actually in a sense been occurring all this time; it isn’t until Bob rapes Jill that an objectively ideal subjective experience is violated. My point can be illustrated further with the following:Group 1:1. A violates B = B is violated (Bob rapes Jill)Group 2:1. B violates A = A is violated (Jill rapes Bob)Group 3: 1. A leaves alone B = B is left alone (Bob leaves Jill alone)2. B leaves alone A = A is left alone (Jill leaves Bob alone)Group 3 is the only one in which no objectively ideal subjective experience is being violated.“My opponent appears to be equating happiness with morality…My opponent assumes some…pleasure based morality...”Pursuing pleasure and happiness may very well be interlocked with your objectively ideal subjective experience, but I haven’t made the claim that they are. My argument in actuality is completely open to whatever is your ideal subjective experience as long as it objectively really is. (Ergo my contentions)“the laws of logic would still exist”Agreed and if my argument is coherent and logically true than such a statement’s truth is all the existence of an objective morality requires."It was wrong of me to sleep with my girlfriends sister". –If this objectively violates an objectively ideal subjective experience than yes it was objectively wrong in a moral sense. I won’t rule out the possibility though that your girlfriend was perfectly fine with it-"Chocolate cake is the best."–No violation of an objectively ideal subjective experience involved with this. Also chocolate cake could very well be objectively the best tasting food in relation to your subjective experience-“An 85 year old man dating a teenager, that's disgusting.”-Could be in contradiction with my contentionsI both thank con for taking on this debate and for the excellent conduct that he has shown.