right and wrong are objective truths

My opponents opening arguments 1) People naturally recognize standards, agree on those standards 2) There is a global and cultural consensus on major standards of morality Concludes: Objective moral standards, inherent morality/sense of right and wrong My position and rebuttal R1) Standards are based on social evolution, fluctuate over time, and are learned R2) There is no global or cultural consensus on standards of morality Conclusion: Morality is subjective, thus the world has ever-evolving standards. A person's reaction to doing something ‘wrong' is not inherent, but learned. 1) While my opponent is correct that there is a standard to how a person reacts to a scenario, it does not infer objective morality. Rather it shows the results of learned behavior for the individual, and culmination of social evolution for that culture. That someone wrong feels bad is the result of being conditioned to it. For example, someone who learned that swearing was immoral would feel bad when they swore, while someone who wasn't, would not, showing that morality, is subjective. This is true at the cultural/social evolutionary level as well, as the standards would be based on which group, was the culturally dominant one. Standards always change and when people disagree on them we get conflict. Conflict is simply the result of the subjectivity of morality. Summary: Standards and behavior can be attributed to social evolution and conditioning, not objective or inherent morals. My opponent continues with a phrase he believes no one would say. My opponent has phrased what we could describe as ‘rationalization'. Rationalization, and the dismissal of standards (whether social or personal) are common and a regular part of the human mind. On a social level, I could rationalize cheating on my taxes because the government wastes too much money. Some might consider this action immoral, some might not, its subjective. A Saudi woman driving a car is rationalizing her need to drive somewhere versus the standard of behavior in her country. Is her action immoral? This leads us to my opponent's 2nd contention regarding global cultural consensus on morality. 2) The fact that I can pose the above question should partly illustrate the moral divide in the world. This isn't to imply a negative, simply to reinforce the fact that societies evolve differently to different existing stimuli, and therefore adopt different standards. My opponent uses basic morality to illustrate an agreement in the world. While he is correct that we have agreement on basic moral issues in conceptual form, what is said is not what has been done, and therefore does not reflect human nature. Great leaders may say we shouldn't kill, and yet lead an army to kill millions. The fact that we agree, and say killing shouldn't be done does not reflect our sense of morality. Rather, the fact that killing occurred all throughout history and continues to this day reflects our social evolution and the subjective morality allowing it to be justified. My opponent states: "If moral standards were really subjective to each individual, you would expect to see wide ranging variances concerning what is right and wrong..." This is in fact what we see. Irreconcilable values leads to conflict. On a global scale these conflicting morals lead to war, rationalizing away any number of general moral standards. On a social level we see some type of conflict everywhere. Conflict is a reality because subjective morality is a reality. My opponent begins to use subjective qualifiers as he describes an objectively moral world: "For most ‘reasonable people' the issue (abortion) is whether it is in fact a child who is being killed" My opponent is essentially arguing that a person's position on this issue invariably comes down to whether it is ‘a child who is being killed'. He concludes there is an inherent human moral perception dictating this response. However, if one could (as one does) make an argument of a ‘reasonable person', that also accepted this precept that it is or is not ‘a child being killed', or just ignored it entirely, it would negate this argument, as mere moral subjectivity. So lets do that. Is abortion wrong? Maybe. Is there ever a situation where an abortion is necessary? Maybe. Do you want the US government to decide when that is? No. I have made a reasonable pro-choice argument without ever addressing whether ‘it is a child'. I am not saying my opponent's view is wrong, or this is a good argument, simply that our reasoning and thus morals and conclusions are subjective. My opponent concludes this point: "You will find very few who say "I don't care if it is a child. A woman should be able to murder it if she feels like doing so."" I am in fact saying this. (As are enough people culminating in US law) But let me rephrase it so I can better show the rationalization of this subjective moral viewpoint: Should the government be able to stipulate morality? Maybe. In a sense it already does, as our laws act as a standard of behavior and a generalized morality. Therefore many of the laws of secular western countries are liberalized, acknowledging subjective and pluralistic viewpoints in increasingly diversified cultures. US federal law therefore reasonably reflects in this instance of moral ambiguity that it should be up to the individual because no consensus can be reached. The rest of this issue is important theologically, but does not make a case for objective morality. My opponent concludes his 2nd argument by saying that without an objective moral viewpoint, it would be nonsense to argue whether or not a war was morally correct or not. It is nonsense to argue whether or not a war is morally correct because it is subjective, and anyone can apply any moral guideline they see fit. If one wants to look at it objectively they wouldn't call it immoral. Conclusion: My opponent concludes with a description of the world without objective morals and effectively describes reality. "one has no basis upon which to hold others accountable for their actions." Since we don't have objective moral standards, we (society) find it difficult to know when and how to hold others accountable. This is true globally, culturally, and individually. "There would be no such thing as a bad man or a bad woman." There isn't. It's an opinion, a subjective qualifier based on a point of view. A general standard of a culture dictates whether a person is considered good or bad. Thus a worldwide varying response to "Is Osama Bin Laden good or bad?" would be an indication to the lack of global consensus, or objective standard. "Goodbye civil rights, hello subjugation of every person weaker or different than the majority." My opponent has once again described reality. Civil and minority rights are recently adopted morals that are the result of the evolution of society. The lack of civil and minority rights we see today are similarly indicative of a world lacking objective and inherent morality. "…There would be no basis, no standard to call to one's aid to make such arguments." There is no basis or standard to call on when making moral arguments. However, a logical one will usually suffice for the same ends. "…Every person inherently knows there is a right and a wrong and people usually exhibit signs of what we refer to as a conscience, becoming uneasy when they have violated the standard." Behavior is learned and cannot be inherent if it is not universal. People have different standards and often violate them without remorse. "A world of subjective morals is a frightening place. Providentially for us there are clearly moral standards. Right and wrong are objective truths." We live in a world of subjective morals, thankfully there are laws based on our current social/cultural values that have evolved over time. If these values were objective, and inherent, they wouldn't need to be learned and changed constantly over time.