Morals are Objective

Awesome! Both forfeit the first round! Now, to the debate... Morals: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Tell me the difference between these two statements: 1. Chocolate ice-cream is better than vanilla. 2. It's wrong to torture babies for fun. The first statement was subjective, it's legitimacy changes from taste to taste and person to person. The second statement appeals to a higher "moral code" if you will, and is a claim that is true no matter what someone's taste is. Relativists and relativism is part of a worldview that says, "You're right in what you believe, and I'm right in what I believe. There is no set of rules we are to follow except for the ones set by either the individual or the society." Scott Klusendorf defined relativism as this: "What's right and wrong is up to us to decide either individually or as a society. There are no objective standards of morality that we are beholden to independent of personal tastes and culture." These are the 2 types of relativism that Greg Koukl describes. 1. Society Says Relativism: There are so many different nations with different morals than you do- how can you say you are right? Basically, there is no consensus, therefore there is no right answer. - The first sentence seems intimidating for a person who believes morals hold true in whichever circumstance or society you find yourself in, but the claim is only descriptive, meaning, it only describes what the society is doing, not what it ought to do. Just because there isn't any consensus, there isn't an absence of a right answer. In this belief, morality is "reduced to a social contract and is determined by popular consensus." But if this is true, there is no such thing as an immoral law or immoral society. If each nation or group creates their own morality, none of them and none of us have the right to claim one to be better or worse than the other. It then becomes impossible to improve society, it can only be changed. In the Nuremberg Trials, that is what the Nazi's used as justification. They tried to appeal to the belief that morals are relative, they were only following orders, what Nazi Germany creates to be morality is morality for Nazi Germany- no one else should condemn them for it. The judges however looked past that and had them hanged. I believe that's because the judges knew that what the Nazis did was wrong, and even if they had won WWII -took over the world and brainwashed everyone to believe that what they did was right- it would still be wrong. I'd also like to address those who agree that the society we live in now, is better than Nazi Germany in the 1940's. If you agree with this, why do you say it's better? In order for you to say ours is better, you need to believe that there is some standard that is better than what we're at, a standard we are striving towards. I ask now, "How is it that you think there are societies that have more ideal moralities and less ideal moralities if there is no objective moral guideline that is ideal?" C.S Lewis put it extremely well in his book, Mere Christianity, when he said, "...But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?" https://www.goodreads.com... From the evidence, I conclude that morality is not relative and is, in fact, objective- What is wrong here and now was wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future anywhere else.