The Moral Argument is Sound!

I would ask that people leave their personal feelings and views at the door and only judge this debate on the content of the arguments. C1} Objective moral values and duties exist through God"We weigh our goods and bads in ranking systems. We use these ranking systems to determine what is good or bad but there must be a standard to make such a standard possible. " I would like to rephrase this statement to what I believe you actually mean by it"We weigh our goods and bads in ranking systems. We use these ranking systems to determine what is good or bad but there must be an objective standard to make such a subjective standard possible. You would have to show that humans are incapable of making subjective standards. .. which of course would deny empyrical observation of our ability to do so. Of course there are subjective standards, we have the ability to make moral standards and outlines based upon subjective values that we hold. For example, if we value the well being of children then we ought not torture them for fun. This is an assesment made based on a subjective value, not an appeal to an objective standard that exists outside of ourselves nor does it require one(nor have you shown it does). . http://plato.stanford.edu...Because moral intuition is often in conflict and contradictory(For instance he senses that murdering jews because they're jews is wrong, yet hitler and the nazi's not only felt it was objectively right but that it was their objective duty), what my opponent needs to do is show an objective ought , value, or duty and demonstrate that it is objective independant of an appeal to god(The moral argument is used to show that a god does infact exist) or an appeal to emotions, subjective standards, or subjective values(This would negate the first premise that god is required for objective morals). . http://www.philosophy-index.com... "If Objective morality exist then we would notice it. Objective morality would be necessary and moral values and duties would be a system of ethics which are universally seperate of the opinions of individual human persons. Just like 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if everyone in the world disagreed. "I think it's incredible that you claim, if objective morals did exist then we would notice them(You believe they exist, implying that everyone does notice them), then you claim we weigh our goods and bads. If we can just observe objective morals, what weighing is to be done? We should be able to see them(as you said) as well as we see 2+2=4, yet every single day there are arguments about what is wrong and what is right based on subjective values(observable), this is a CLEAR illustration that we do not see objective oughts and values as we see 2+2=4 I would also like to illustrate that I myself could demonstrate that 2+2=4 without resorting to intuition, i represents 1 unit ii+ii=iiii. Until my opponent demonstrates objective morality as such, we can easily disregard it as a horribly deceptive analogy. We have the ability to create our own standards, build upon previous standards that were made, and reason out what ought be done based on common values(although common, still subjective). This is merely evidence that we have this ability, not that an objective standard exists. Humans can conceptualize things that do not exist and often attribute feelings or thoughts to things that do not exist. ". Thinking of our moral experience like the experience of our five senses helps to show the objectivity of morality. Everyone shares the five senses experience, just as everyone shares the moral experience. .. Only an moral standard is necessary for objective moral values. . http://www.maverick-christian.org... idea of moral values and duties are clear, they provid reference to some higher lawmaker than those of our physical state. Oour moral obligations can be understood as imposed. "I agree that it's a good analogy. Everyone experiences deliciousness, something that tastes good to us, this does not mean that there is something that is objectively tasty. If you say yes, but that makes it objectively tasty to us, then I could easily say that something could be objectively wrong or we ought do something objectively to us(rendering premise 1 as false due to objective morality being grounded in us). Everyone experiences beauty, things we find attractive, this does not mean that something objectively beautiful exists. Everyone finds certain things disgusting, wrong, abbhorent, this does not mean that those things are objectively disgusting, wrong, and abbhorent(For instance, Spartans felt it was their duty to throw children off cliffs for the better of their race and empire, while we would find that horrible). The action we perceive is equivalent to the steak, the piece of art, etc, while the wrongness, disgustingness, rightousness is what we assess based on our nature, emotions,reason, and culture(Meaning if you consider that objective, then premise 1 is not valid). We all have emotions, the ability to assess based on values, etc. .. this does not mean that our values are objective. Just as Tina finds steak objectively tasty while Timmy finds it disgusting, we feel what the spartans did is horrible while they felt is was their objective duty. These inconsistencies mean that you are required to verify it independantly of your own intuition and as of now you have not done such. . http://www.philosophybasics.com... "Conclusion Divine command theory and theism offers a sound foundation for morality because it explains the grounds of both objective moral values and duties. If God exists, we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. Divine Command theory is trounced by the Euthryphro Dilemma. Paraphrasing"Is something good because god commands it? Or is it commanded because it is good? " The former makes morality arbitrary thereby not objective and can change at the whim of god. The latter means that god is not necessary or responsible for morality but merely an observer and messenger. Divine command theory in no way offers a solid foundation for morality. . http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...I will try and address some objections that I suspect will arrise"You're confusing moral epistemology with moral ontology"Considering premise 2(Objective morals and values exist) is being supported by our experiencing what is supposedly objectively wrong and right and these experiences contradict, moral epistemology is most certainly at the forefront of this discussion. . http://plato.stanford.edu... "I bet if your mother was raped you wouldn't believe it was objectively wrong"No, if I did hold this view, it would be a contradiction. I would believe it's wrong based on my subjective values(including the fact I value my mother), empathy, and reasoning. I would also like to illustrate that no one is thinking "Wow, what that guy did was wrong because god said so". .. they more are in an extreme state of emotional distress, anger, and it's due to the harm that was done to their loved one and their ability to empathize. "You believe the statement that torturing a child for fun is wrong needs independant verification? "Not if one claim's that it's just simply wrong, I value children, you value children so there's an understanding. If a person claims that it's objectively wrong and is so independant of any person's values and judgements. .. then yeah, there does need to be. My opponent has not demonstrated that objective oughts or duties exist in a way that requires them to be grounded in god. I look forward to his response.