The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

Introduction I ask the voters to pardon my writing style. I think if I talk to my opponent as if conversing with a friend is will help make my case easier to understand. Body "First of all, rational thought is actually used in deciding morals. " Not entirely true. There is a deeper simpler objective moral code, within us all. When deciding our morals for more complicated things, we use are ability of reason to decide if the morals line up with the objective moral code with-in us. You can see this when we debate the issues. Both sides are typically trying to show how their opinion lines up with the objective moral code easier. People for and against torture, are both trying to show how their opinion causes the least total harm. You can see how they're both appealing to the same moral code. In this instance "Do the least amount of harm to the group". "Just look at abortion or the death penalty. They are constantly debated because you don't sense what is morally right. Rational thought has a very important role in deciding what is moral and what isn't. " These issues are more complicated. If you look at what people at doing. You can see when they debate those issues, they're really debating whose view falls in line with this objective moral code easier. They are either arguing that abortion and the death penalty cause less harm when legal or cause less harm when illegal. Really take a look and pay attention when people debate these issues. Both sides are arguing using the same moral assumptions. Nobody really steps in and says "your moral assumptions are wrong". No they argue against them. "As long as our actions are based on the interpretation of the moral code, then the moral code is not objective. " It's definitely objective. Especially if we're using an interpretation of the same moral code. The fact that some people don't interpret and apply it correctly, in no way means it isn't objective. If the morality isn't objective, there really isn't anything to interpret. " Thinking that marriage is special doesn't have anything to do with morality, it's just an opinion that differs from person to person. Not even thinking marriage is special is objective. Many believe marriage is not special, so even if it was part of a deeper moral code, it would still be subjective. " Everyone thinks marriage is special. Even the people who think it's an outdated and useless institution acknowledge it as special. You'll be hard pressed to find a guy who thinks it's ok to sleep with another man's wife. Even if that man does think the concept of marriage should be abolished. " For example, murder is wrong is the interpretation of a deeper moral code ( since there are suicide bombers who believe murder is the best thing in the world) As long as there are 2 different interpretations, there should be a deeper, objective moral code. That would be that human life is special, which is again just an opinion that some people don't agree with. " Even terrorists think murder is wrong. Terrorists view themselves as at war. They believe themselves to be doing God's work. It really takes a lot of justification on their part, to come to the conclusion that what they're doing is right. It's not that killing another human is viewed as wrong. It's the unjustified killing of other humans, and terrorists believe they're justified. You won't find a person who thinks it's good to murder a baby, just for fun. If you do it's not a case of subjective morality. It's a case of needing a psychologist. "Desire of the happiness of others is a very interesting topic, because we are educated in that way. Modern society as well as religion remind us we should all love each other everyday. We just accept this and mostly pretend we care about everyone, but we know this is not the case. How much do you care about a hobo? Do you wish happiness to a serial killer? " A sense of justice is also part of the moral code. In the case of serial killers, we typically see them as sub-human. They have harmed the ability of the group to survive and need to be punished. As far as the hobo is concerned. I don't give a crap about him. He isn't in my wolf pack and not a threat to me. Even though I don't care about him. We both know from our shared objective morals that it's wrong for me to go over to him and take a leak on him. "Since morality justifies one's beliefs, it is of course very hard to explain why that is your moral standard. Just like you use you taste in music to justify the bands you listen too, but you can't explain why you have that taste in music. Subjective morals are just as hard to justify as objective morals. " Your taste in music is a conditioned thing and isn't completely applicable to what we're debating. With that being said. Humans love music, and we all secretly tap our feet to some Justin Bieber music when nobody is watching. My opponent's last statement seems to be conceding that some objective morals exist. We were never debating if all morals are objective. We were debating if an objective set of morals exist. My opponent implies that he agrees that at least some morals are objective. Conclusion We can sense this objective morality with our gut reactions. We might all apply and interpret parts of it differently, but that doesn't mean it's non existent. You can see when people debate issues they are appealing to this same unspoken moral code.