Morality is subjective

Here is my argument for Objective Morality. I borrowed some of my points from the book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." I will start off by providing my own arguments and then I will do rebuttals in part two of my response. Part One: a. Since we know what is absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness. Murder is an action that all people (insane people are the exception) recognize as absolutely wrong. Taking the life of a human being unjustly is undeniably wrong and everybody knows it. That said, if we know what is wrong, we must have some idea of what is right. For example, if someone were to say that 2+2 were equal to five, we would know that they were wrong. But in order to know that, we would have to have some idea of what the right answer was. b. If there wasn't a Moral Law, then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it. We have all done something wrong at some point in our lives. It is interesting to note that we always try to make excuses for violating the moral law. But if there was no objective moral law, then we would not feel the need to apologize to people when we hurt them. For example, if I were to say some harsh words to a family member of mine, I might try to offer them excuses like "I was hungry." However, if morality was subjective, and there was no right/wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to to say sorry whenever we did something "wrong". In fact, lets say that I owed a person money. I wouldn't have any moral reason to pay them back. The person I owed money to merely would have a different opinion of what morality was than me. And since there would be no objective moral standard, I would be perfectly justified in not paying him back. But this is all ridiculous since we all are aware of the same objective moral law. And that is why we make excuses for violating it and that is the reason why we just know when someone wrongs us. c. All people really do know that a standard of right/wrong exist. Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (Lewis 6). The same people that say that morality is opinion based (or subjective) would still be irritated at people for treating them poorly. I can imagine that my opponent would be irritated if the voters gave me all the votes merely because they liked my username better than his. He would certainly feel wronged. But the thing is, if morality was subjective, no one should ever feel wronged. Why would someone feel wronged if morality was based on opinions? Sometimes people try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective? d. If there is no objective morality, there is no reason to be moral. If there was no objective standard of right/wrong, then all we would have is peoples opinions. Our opinion on morality would be like our opinion on what the best flavor of ice cream is. It just would not matter If we did something that people thought was wrong since there would be no objectively wrong things in the first place. Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. The question "why be moral" and "Why benefit society" are almost the same question. Benefiting society is a moral thing to do...but we want to know why someone should be moral if there is no objective morality. Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves. Part Two: My opponent claims that "We can see many examples of people having different morals. Throughout history the dramatic splinter between the Christian and Muslim worlds has split the two belief systems so far, that both sides have seen killing of the other side as moral." The problem here is that the Muslims actually affirm the moral law of the Christians in their Qur'an. It says that "It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3). Therefore the Muslims and the Christians recognize the same basic moral principles that the rest of the world does. That said, this does not mean that Christians and Muslims have always done what is moral. Yes, both of them agree that murder is wrong. But when they have killed each other in the past, they didn't see what they were doing as murder. They saw it as killing. So they agree on the same basic moral principles, but they disagree on who is committing the wrong actions. My opponent says that "Adolf Hitler killed six million Jews, Slavs, and others in the name of the German People. Hitler came to power through the consent of the German people, many of whom he convinced that the German People were supreme over all others. Today we can clearly see that this is false, but the people of the time believed it." Hitler did do all those horrible things yet he convinced himself that he was right. He didn't see what he did as murder...he thought he was helping Germany. So I ask my opponent, why do you claim that Hitler was wrong (you used the word false) if morality is subjective? If morality is subjective, then Hitler wasn't actually wrong. He merely had a different opinion of morality than my opponent does. Lastly, my opponent said that "This is just a small amount of proof that morality is subjective, and that there is no universal meaning to what is good and what is bad." I don't think any of that proved subjective morality. In fact, I think that the fact that you said that Hitler was false (or wrong) proves that morality is objective. Again, in order to know that something is false, you have to have some idea of what is true. My opponent rightly recognizes that Hitler was wrong...but to know that, he would have to know what is right. I thank my opponent for a good round and I look forward to the next one. Source: Used C. S. Lewis' book called "Mere Christianity."