Objective morality exists

Welcome readers, and thank you socialpinko for inviting me to debate this with you. I will be explaining that morals are objective as opposed to subjective. My opponent has left me in a difficult position in regards to the rules. I personally think it would make more sense if the BOP was shared on such an issue as this. Anyway, on to my arguments. The statement, objective morals exist is intuitively obvious to most humans. For analogy, we may take the objective truth of mathematics. Mathematics is a truth that is hard to explain similar to morality. 2+2=4 is an objective statement. No matter how hard anyone would like to make 2+2=5, they can’t. With morals, we can take a number of situations and occurrences such as mass murdering or torturing innocent children and come to the conclusion that these are obviously wrong to most humans. It is not necessary to prove this as wrong to every single human as not every human may have the ability to distinguish right and wrong behavior like everyone else. A person could, for example, be a psychopath. Mistakes in morality may be comparable to a person who gets their sums wrong. The answer one comes up with is not necessarily the correct one. We may find disputes with more complex mathematical problems just as humans have disputes over what actions are moral or immoral. Everyone knows murder is wrong, but humans argue whether abortion is murder or not.When observing those who consider morality to be subjective, we expect them to consider that actions that are wrong are only wrong from their point of view. Yet, they are never consistent with this claim. C.S. Lewis writes, But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking on to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such ting as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?"[1]Invariably, people who are moral subjectivists will view a wrong against themselves as a real wrong. If moral relativists and the like cannot uphold their own beliefs on the matter of objective morality, appealing to a real Right and Wrong when they don’t believe in one, then it is more logical to conclude that Right and Wrong are actually objective facts.If morality were subjective, then we should expect to find significant differences between the fundamental principles of moral codes. This is not what we find. Generally speaking, there is agreement on the fundamental principles regarding human moral codes around the world. We may find the remotest of tribes and primitive civilization and find that people consider actions such as bravery, humility, and honesty are noble, and actions such as selfishness, cowardice, and betrayal are condemned. Nowhere is it considered a moral action to murder a person (although they debate what is or isn’t murder) and nowhere is it considered evil to be kind and unselfish. Often in this debate, many will point out the immoral actions of hate, rape, torture, and so on, but they never consider the opposite. What if there was a world where sharing, bravery, honesty, and doing a deed for your neighbor with no return were considered evil and immoral? I suspect we would have to travel across universes to opposite-land to find such a world. Although let’s be honest, thinking of a world where torturing children for fun is a good thing is just as difficult.Evolution is the typical explanation for the existence of morals if they are indeed subjective. But what we find is that moral tendencies are separate from animal instinct. To say that morals are an evolved construct, nothing more than an arm or leg to aid our individual survival, is a completely illogical notion. Just because something is not socially advantageous, such as rape, does not mean it is really wrong. Say someone committed raped and escaped the social consequences; we could consider that act moral if morality was an evolved construct. Also, if morality is an evolved construct, it should be labeled under our instincts. Our instincts do not however tell what someone ought or ought not to do. C.S. Lewis' way of differentiating herd instinct and moral law is this:Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires-one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. [2]If our moral sense, what we ought and ought not to do, is merely our instincts, we should expect there to be nothing but instincts in our head when faced with this situation. The stronger instinct wins. But there is something different there. Remember that instincts themselves are not bad. The sexual instinct or fighting instinct are not themselves bad, yet there are situations where they must be suppressed. So we must differentiate the moral sense from herd instinct. Morality is not something that is a consequence of evolution but rather something separate from it. Since morals are not derived from evolution like a moral subjectivist would have you to believe, then we may conclude that morals are actually objective. This, among the other factors previously argued, is a significant case that morals are actually objective rather than subjective. I await my opponent's response.[1] [2] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Ch.2