There Exists an Objective Moral Law

My opponent agreed to allow me to use sourcing in this debate to get around character limits, if that becomes an issue.****MY OPPONENTS CASE**** 1. MORAL DIS-AGREEMENTSMy opponent makes an interesting point on a person arguing over their morality, even if they do not feel it is correct at first. But this is called the process of "creating your own morality". Kind of what I was saying with the south park arguments. When in their ignorance, humans will create an argument for why doing what they did was okay so strongly, that they themselves believe it. They thus, have created their own morality. However even if a person STILL doesn't believe in that morality, but argue against it's actions, that just makes them a hypocrite. This doesn't actually make any justification for an objective morality based on the presumption of ignorance. C.S. Lewis is absolutely right in saying a man won't call a line crooked if he knows what a straight line looks like. Subjectively, to him, a line is straight. This same premise is shared by thousands. Besides the fact that this isn't a majority, this is still fallible because there exists a man in the world who believes a crooked line to me or you, is indeed straight.But by your logic you discount a great many scenario's. I am partially colorblind for example. If you see an apple as red, but I see the apple as pink, does this mean that I am absolutely wrong? How can I be wrong if this is what I see? Is it wrong simply because other people dis-agree? What about those who are completely color blind? You will argue that the apple is red, I will argue that the apple is pink, while he will argue that the apple is grey. Morality is not absolute or definitive as it is merely created by those who own their own moral code. It can be perceived and viewed in a vast amount of ways. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. MORAL CRITICISMS"If morality were truly subjective, we would have no right to say that Nazis were wrong, and therefore it would be completely acceptable for another Hitler to come along and have another Holocaust."This statement to me has completely altered anything I said previously. In order for morality to be subjective, only one party must agree that morality is correct. Sure what Hitler did was incredibly wrong. According to both of our moralities. But not Hitler's. Hitler was okay with doing the actions that he did, guilt free, as evidenced by the Mein Kumpf in which contains his political ideologies, properly defining and justifying why he feels the actions he has committed are just.http://en.wikipedia.org... Nothing I have said makes him committing another Holocaust okay though, so I believe you must have grossly mis-understood my argument. If we can recognize that Hitler's believed in his own moral code, that it "Existed" as opposed to a world wide view of morality, then we understand that morality is truly subjective. The fact that neither you or I can fathom how Hitler could commit such atrocious acts, is evidence to the fact that he owns a morality that exists outside of our own.3. KEEPING PROMISES AND TREATIESI apologize to my opponent for mis-understanding the relevancy of my arguments. I will attempt to re-iterate them."I don't know anyone who teaches their kids it's okay to lie, or it's okay to break promises if it can result in personal gain."I felt this was worth quoting from my opponent for specifically the reason of personal experience with it. Believe it or not, teaching or believing of principle outside of your morals, is not so profound. My step-mother would always tell me that lying is okay as long as it was for some greater purpose, or some helpful justification could be mustered up from doing so. Also there are actually religions and churches that teach and condone such acts. I think it would be safe to say, that a lot of religious people even use their own religion for personal gain in some way or another, thus violating their own moral code. Anyhow the Wiccan religion has a moral code they teach "An it harm none, do what ye will", which is called the wiccan rede. Contrary to what you would take the meaning as, they actually condone a lot of the practices in which you stated above, to believe as sinning.http://en.wikipedia.org...Strictly speaking, yes parents ought to teach their kids the to follow certain values. But that is just my relative morality speaking ;-) I recognize that not all people hold that morality the same as I do. 4. BREAKING THE MORAL LAWFirst off I was merely using the south park reference as an example. The south park reference however, is not so invalid to other humans beings. I clarified in the rebuttal to argument 1 a little better, but this was in reference to humans re-writing their own morals codes by justifying violating a previous moral code.What you, keytar, label as a psychotic, is merely someone who dis-agrees with your opinion. Not all people with whacked opinions though are psychotic. Hitler, while having horrible views in my moral opinion, can be generally categorized as an intelligent individual.Saying that we all feel something deep down, is more of a hope for obective morality than a fact proven."This I still do, and must do, because guilt is a subjective feeling where any further step is only a reduplication–feeling guilty about my guilt."This is a quote from a rather interesting article (it is also a great read if you have the time), called the Guilty Vicarage, by Wynston Hugh Auden.When guilt is noticed, or felt by someone who completes an atrocious act, that guilt will be commonly associated with knowing that they violated a moral code they were taught. However being taught something, simply cannot write a person's morality. If an individual chooses not to believe in that moral code, and instead follow their own, then they do not feel guilty for the act they have committed, but rather for the act of letting down their mentors.A boy raised in a religious, conservative family, who actively supports that any gay actions are immoral, cannot conform to these ideals if he himself is gay, or does agree with these views.If you are con abortion, but feel that morality is subjective and a woman who approves of it should be able to get an abortion, shouldn't you be pro abortion? Even if you are personally opposed to it, shouldn't you be pro so that a woman who approves of it should be able to get an abortion if she feels she needs it?"If you are con abortion, but feel that morality is subjective and a woman who approves of it should be able to get an abortion, shouldn't you be pro abortion? Even if you are personally opposed to it, shouldn't you be pro so that a woman who approves of it should be able to get an abortion if she feels she needs it?" Absolutely not. In my opinion no woman should ever get an abortion period, because that is in my morality. I am recognizing philosophically however, that woman has her own morality that the action is correct, and that a morality separate to mine exists.Anyways my question to you wasn't whether you agreed with the other members on their standpoint. My question was asking you if you recognized that their is a separate morality from yours based on the split votes? Upon recognizing that their Morality exists, we can finally know and understand that absolutism is virtually impossible. So you feel that Morality exists outside of human recognition. If this is true, than how do you know your moral code is the correct one? You must understand how making a statement like that is completely versatile. Even by you admitting that most (not all) people would agree that killing another mans dog is wrong, you recognize there are others with differing beliefs. Subjectively you recognize that someone else's morality exists outside your own.This debate will continue in the link below.http://www.debate.org...