Morality is objective

I will respond to my opponent’s points sequentially. 1. Objective legal systems - Con seems to be “moving the goalposts” slightly by implying that a moral code must apply to every country in order to be objective. They compare abortion laws in country A and country B as an example. However, this was not the condition presented in round 1. Con defined morality as “how we categorize whether certain actions are good or bad.” Con defined objectivity as something being true regardless of popular agreement. Nowhere in these definitions is it stipulated that such categorization must apply between multiple countries. Therefore, I submit that if a nation’s law system categorizes between good and bad, and that categorization is enforced independent from popular agreement, then it meets our definition criteria and proves the existence of objective morality for the citizens of that country. I realize laws are not the same as morals, but laws do legislate moral issues. This creates a legally accepted moral code of right and wrong that societies must follow regardless of each individual’s personal beliefs. I am not trying to argue semantics, but since I have burden of proof I must ensure that my opponent only makes rebuttals within the definitions that were agreed to. Con writes, “If the law says that you can't have an abortion, than you objectively can't have an abortion according to the law, but that doesn't mean that abortion is objectively morally wrong.” Actually, it does. If the law categorizes something as wrong, and enforces the categorization as true whether or not you agree with it, then it is objectively morally wrong according to our definitions. For the country A and country B example, Con asks “is abortion right or wrong?” Good question. They are correct in saying that it cannot be both, but either answer still proves objective morality. Saying abortion is right is an objective declaration. Saying it is wrong is also an objective declaration. The only remaining answer, which the subjectivist must embrace, is that abortion is neither right nor wrong – it simply is, and your individual opinion about it is no better than anyone else’s. This brings us to a false moral reality, which I will discuss later. Con says that laws are accepted solely based on popularity. That is not true. Many laws are extremely unpopular, yet they are still enforced. Once again, I reference the Ellie Nesler and George Zimmerman court decisions that were very unpopular, but enforced nonetheless. Con also says that judges and juries give their own subjective interpretation of the law, which is untrue. Judges and juries do make individual decisions, but those decisions are still based on the existence of an objective law. They do not just make up random standards based on personal opinions. My goal with this argument is simply to show that laws often define morality, and these laws are objective because they are enforced regardless of popular agreement. This is only one way in which moral principles exist in an objective state. 2. Appeal to popularity - I agree that universal agreement is not evidence. That was not the point of the argument. This argument challenges my opponent to demonstrate that all people do not have some right to life, health, happiness, etc… I am making a claim that most people sense we have these rights intrinsically, and my evidence is that people fight to regain them if they are taken away. Con must refute that claim. So far, he has neglected to do so. I am not appealing to popularity, I am making a claim and challenging Con to refute it. 3. “Subjective does not mean meaningless” - Con says this to demonstrate that people can still be justifiably upset about a wrongdoing in a subjective system. To this I ask: If subjective reasons have meaning, from where does such meaning come? How can someone rightly get upset about an act if there are no objective principles against which actions can be evaluated? One might suggest you can get upset just because it hurts you or puts you at some disadvantage, but that is still an objective maxim! It is the principle that people should not do things that hurt you. 4. Appeal to consequences - Let us now explore the false moral reality I mentioned earlier. Con claims that rights are granted to people by moral systems. This is true, but I believe my opponent misses the bigger picture. If rights are only given by individual authorities with subjective morals, then we must face some major philosophical problems. For example, some Middle Eastern governments give husbands the right to beat or stone their wives for various offenses. Is that ok? Nazi Germany gave the SS the right to murder Jews. Was that not wrong? The United States once considered black people as property, is that acceptable? If morality is classifying things as good/bad/right/wrong, and objectivity means those classifications remain true in spite of popular opinion, then subjective morality means that good/bad/right/wrong is classified by popular opinion. So, we therefore have no ability to judge the Nazis or the slave masters. Their system was agreeable to those people at that time, and so it was just as "good" as any system agreed upon today. The Nazis were just as correct in murdering the Jews as the Allies were in saving them. They were simply two different subjective belief systems fighting for dominance. Is that true? Is that the reality we observe in our world? My claim is that it is not, and my opponent must demonstrate why my claim is false. I am not appealing to consequences; I am appealing to the reality we observe in our world. In fact, my opponent even admits this by saying “reality is far from that [people doing whatever they want].” This only supports my position that we observe our world is governed by some objective concept of human behavior that all people are held accountable to. 5. Arguing subjectivity using objectivity – Let’s take a moment to once again consider what objectivity is. An objective statement is a claim that someone says is true despite disagreement by others. Con wrote (I quote), “MORALITY is not objective.” He is claiming that is true whether I agree with it or not. It is an objective statement. By saying morality is not objective, Con is making a claim about the nature of morality that he believes is true. Therefore, at it’s core, claiming morality must be subjective actually demonstrates its objective nature. I realize this is highly philosophical and a bit abstract, but it is extremely interesting to consider…. 6. Gravity analogy - The point of this comparison was not to suggest that morality can be measured or tested. The point was to show that, like gravity, morality is an invisible force that can be observed through its effect on other objects or people. We cannot escape gravity’s influence. We can jump, but we will come back down. Planes can fly, but they must eventually land. Even if you go to outer space and escape earth’s gravity, you will drift along until you are captured by another object’s gravitational pull. Similarly, we cannot escape morality’s pull. For example, we cannot help feeling angry, violated, or upset if someone stole our most prized possession. In a more extreme example, no culture on earth thinks it’s ok to torture babies for no reason. Some societies think it’s ok to torture them in certain situations, but none accepts random and unjustified infanticide. The minute we project our moral opinions against the actions of another person, we acknowledge the existence of objective morality. There is a simple way to test the validity of subjective morality. If a moral is objective, it remains true even if people disagree with it. If a moral is subjective, it becomes false if people disagree with it. So, if people suddenly decided that randomly torturing babies was ok, would their view become acceptable? Of course not. Moral subjectivity does not translate to reality as we experience it.