There is an objective morality

Conditions: 1. Pro will argue in favor of there being an objective morality 2. Con will argue against there being an objective morality Definitions: Objective: "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind" Morality: "the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)." Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://en.wikipedia.org... -By the way I'm a newbie Round 1 argument: Morality depends upon the existence of subjective experience: 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. Is the asteroid immoral for hitting the planet? There has to be subjective experience involved for us to even begin to speak of morality. In fact how could morality be spoken of in the first place if there were no subjective experience? Morality is a manger of subjective experience: Morality depends upon the existence of subjective experience. If this is the case, then morality must be a manger of subjective experience. Go ahead and try to think of something we care about in moral terms that doesn’t have to do with subjective experience. Why does even the religious person who professes to be God’s submissive servant believe such an act to be moral? Well, because they believe that their subjective experience and perhaps the subjective experiences of others will be better off in the long run. Why is murder bad? Well, because it is an absolute violation of a person’s ideal subjective experience. Why is rape bad? Well, because it is by definition a trumping of a person’s ideal subjective experience. Who are the people we see as “nice” or “mean”? “Nice” people are those who don’t violate our ideal subjective experience or perhaps even put our ideal subjective experience ahead of their own, while “mean” people are those who readily violate our ideal subjective experience. Now many people may argue that it doesn’t matter, because morality is in fact nothing more than an illusion. An illusion brought about by social conditioning and evolutionary processes. Ideologies like moral relativism and moral nihilism would have us believe that objective morality doesn’t exist. Others however, will say that objective morality does exist but only if it’s based on their God or gods. Others still have argued for morality based on the systems of utilitarianism, prioritarianism, etc. All of these notions I will argue are mistaken. Everyone has an objectively ideal subjective experience:Let’s notice for a moment that everyone objectively has things that they want to happen to them and things they don’t want to happen to them. We’ll call these facts their “objectively ideal subjective experience”. Of course there would be certain contentions that would need to be considered for something to truly be someone’s “objectively ideal subjective experience”. Required contentions: For one, they couldn’t be lying about their “objectively ideal subjective experience”, because obviously it would then not be objectively their ideal subjective experience. They also couldn’t be too naive to know what their objectively ideal subjective experience really is. Lastly, they couldn’t be deluded in their idea of what their objectively ideal subjective experience is. When I say deluded I mean that they couldn’t be so cut off from reality, and un-open to other possible subjective experiences that they’re unable to judge what objectively their ideal subjective experience really is. Speaking a little of application: Everyone has an objectively ideal subjective experience, and knowing this is acknowledging that some experiences are better or worse at least objectively for that individual. If this is the case and if morality is a manger of subjective experience, well then violating someone’s objectively ideal subjective experience would be objectively wrong in a moral sense. And indeed I will argue that the “immoralities” that we really care about, the ones that are truly far reaching arbitrarily obscure subjective experiences. Remember the contentions: 1. Can’t be lying about your ideal subjective experience 2. Can’t be too naive to know what your ideal subjective experience is 3. Can’t be deluded –so cut off from reality, and un-open to other possible subjective experiences- that you're unable to judge what your ideal subjective experience is These three contentions are not only required but safeguard against irrationality. Why there will be acts that consistently objectively violate objectively ideal subjective experiences: Because we are so similar there will be acts that will regularly objectively violate objectively ideal subjective experiences. Rape is probably the easiest to deem as objectively immoral. It by definition objectively violates one’s objectively ideal subjective experience. If someone wants to be raped, well then it’s no longer rape. Murdering will also consistently objectively violate objectively ideal subjective experiences. There are very few who wish to be murdered, and even fewer that do and wouldn’t be in contradiction with one or more of my contentions. Why should the universe care? Some may be still thinking well so what if people objectively have ideal subjective experiences, what makes the universe care about this? Nothing will make the universe care about this, but why would that matter? All that matters is that in a universe containing subjective experience, those subjective experiences will have objectively ideal subjective experiences, and to violate them is to be objectively wrong in a moral sense. There is certainly much more to cover, but I think this makes for a good start. I thank Con for agreeing to engage in this debate.