Morality is Objective (Tournament Debate)

Before I start it occurred to me that no one had defined what moral means. It is important to understand what it is exactly we are debating. According to Merriam-Webster: a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <amoral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent> [1] The first definition mentions ethics, which is distinct but related, however not to be confused. Now to get on to my arguments. You can assert all you want and sincerely believe that 2+2 can equal anything other than 4 in a base ten system but your belief does not make it correct. There are many wrong answers to the question but only one correct one. If you don’t believe this then there is no way you could pass a math class outside of just doing what you are told. In the same way someone can assert and sincerely believe their personal set of moral beliefs are correct but that doesn’t make them right. I can insist something is morally right while someone else is equally adamant that it is wrong, we can’t both be right. Of all the positions people hold only one can be right and indeed, logically we could all be wrong and some other position is correct. The fact that people hold vastly different views is not sufficient evidence to prove morality is subjective. Morality is not on the same level as your favorite flavor ice cream or favorite color. If it were there would be no point in debating it. Moral relativism puts it on the same level. Rather than asking if rape and murder are wrong I will now ask why they are wrong. If there is no metaphysical reason and it is just your personal opinion then there is no reason to oppose them. Additionally, Subjective morality violates the law of non-contradiction. [2] When two people’s personal morality come in conflict, who determines who is right? If the answer is a judge wouldn’t that just be the judge imposing his own personal morality on others? That also equates morality with legalism and there is a distinction between the two, not all that is legal is moral and not all that is moral is legal. My opponent presented a link on WWII. That is in fact a great example of why morality cannot be universal. Hitler thought what he was doing was right, but he was wrong. A moral relativist could only claim Hitler was wrong in his own personal opinion and by his own personal feelings. Such a view would preclude any need to stop any such atrocity. The reason society reacted to the holocaust was because it was objectively wrong, even though Hitler had brainwashed enough people to think otherwise. My opponent then shows a list of societies where murder is right for them, but again imagine if all those societies believe 2+2=5, they would be wrong. A cow is still a cow even if you sincerely believe it is a horse. Saying that a majority of societies believe something and that makes it right is the fallacy of appeal to majority. The truth of something is not decided democratically. My opponent asks why aren’t there universal consequences. Well the fact that consequences aren’t immediately apparent does not mean they don’t exist. Let’s look at some examples. First of all there is guilt, now some people, most notable psychopaths don’t feel guilt but that is a deficiency on their part. Most people, when they see or hear about an immoral act it elicits some sort of reaction or even feel guilt after acting immorally themselves, this is called a conscience. Some people suppress their conscience if they think their actions will be more immediately beneficial to themselves. If it were subjective why should they care? STDs: You get STDs by being irresponsible with your body, yes ids are born with them, but that is due to what their parents did. Ultimately, death could be seen as the final moral punishment, yes death comes to everyone but do you know anyone who is perfect? However, even if no consequences existed, would that truly be proof that morality is subjective? A counter could be made that doing the right thing is not always rewarded but again that is not sufficient proof for subjectivism. My opponent brings up God as a possible source for morality, while I will agree with him that I won’t focus the debate on that, indeed that would take a completely new debate, I would say yes, if morality originated from God, it is sufficient for moral objectivism. Then of course the argument would be whose God. Again, even though religions disagree on moral truth, does not make it subjective, it just means that someone is wrong (or more specifically, no more than one is correct). I admit that logically, it is possible I am wrong about some things that are and aren’t moral but that just proves even more that morality is objective and that if I am wrong then I hold to a wrong view. I suspect some people adhere to moral subjectivism because they refuse to entertain the idea that they could be wrong. I have demonstrated why the idea of moral relativism is based on a faulty premise and relies on a number of fallacies to support it. I than my opponent and wish him luck in the next round. 1 http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 http://en.wikipedia.org...