There Exists an Objective Moral Law

****PRO's CASE**** 1. MORAL DIS-AGREEMENTSANALYSIS OF A STRAIGHT STICKThe analysis of the stick being particularly straight depends entire on someone subjective belief of what straight is. My opponent was the one who said this himself to begin with. So with that said, what if a society of people have learned that the word straight is associated with what we call a crooked stick? To them, that stick is straight. My opponent keeps saying that the stick is universally straight no matter what. I say that is it unfair of him to make that opinion and say it is objective. In my subjective belief, the stick is simply an un defined object. It's definition becomes important when applying our subjective beliefs onto the stick. Being raised on taught to know what straight is, I may call that stick straight. I also may notice it is brown, sharp, and dirty. But this is simply my definition of the stick based on what I have learned and then believed. Again, a different society who was raised to believe that the stick was blue, clean, dull, and crooked cannot be objectively wrong, as that is what they believe. Subjectively in my belief this is still just an in animate object with no physical properties until someone applies their own belief system onto that object. TRAFFIC LIGHT ANALYSISMy opponent attempts to use an example of me being pulled over by a police officer for simply not knowing the color of the light. Again this is deterring from the point. I myself will not run the traffic light, because subjectively I know the laws of driving, and choose to abide by my societies moral code. I however am not everyone, and that's where my opponent is mistaken. If someone from a different society were to enter ours being raised to believe that red is green, and that green is red, and is told to go on green, and to stop on red, they will inevitably run many red lights. They will be given a ticket, though, while failing to understand why, as subjectively they were taught and believed this themselves.2. MORAL CRITICISMSBack to the Hitler stuff are we? My opponent keeps using this word "Right". He keeps saying that in my opinion, we don't have the "right" to stop Hitler. This is why I feel he is deeply mis-construing me here. I have never said that, nor will I ever. In my subjective opinion, we had every right to stop Hitler and his atrocious acts. All I am saying is that just because Hitler's actions are subjectively wrong to most societies, doesn't mean they are objectively wrong. We fail to understand how his morality could allow him to do such a thing guilt less. But you see, us failing to understand it doesn't mean it was objectively wrong. And Hitler wasn't the only one who shared this belief. Hitler taught his people his beliefs, and a great many of them did agree with his actions. They accepted it as part of their morality, thus making it their own subjective morality. The fact that you and I don't understand/don't agree with it, only enforces the fact that morality cannot be objective. If morality was objective then they would not have been able to make their own moral code and feel okay with carrying it out. The book called the Ten commandments was Hitler's attempt at showing the world his beliefs in Nazism, and many people agreed with the codes of conduct it presented. I don't however, and you don't. Thus we are subjective. . http://www.goodreads.com... 3. KEEPING PROMISES AND TREATIESAgain I am going to say I completely agree with you on your moral code of lying in order to save a life, etc. This is our shared morality. However this is not a viewed shared by everyone around the world. In fact, popular philosopher Immanuel Kant, is of the opinion that Lying, no matter what the circumstance, is always an act of immorality. . http://www.scu.edu...Simply saying once again, that being that their exists different moral codes, simply proves that objectivity is impossible. 4. BREAKING THE MORAL LAW. I am a little peeved about the assumption con is making towards my morality, as he is vastly saying things that I never said. I have agreed with him on many of his moral codes. He goes on to say however that I don't believe in acting upon it. This is completely false. I don't understand where he is getting this either. I don't agree with a woman getting an abortion, and yes, I believe in taking the necessary actions to prevent her from getting one. I recognize that she has a different moral belief than me. I get that. In my subjective morality, she is still committing a murder however, and I will not approve of the action. It is really annoying that Pro keeps assuming that I would be okay with her getting an abortion. With that said my opponent has admitted that he notices that other moral codes exist. If this is true, than how can you say there is an objective morality? And also the question I have been seeking the answer to: What is this universal code of morality, and where is your proof that it is omnipotent other than your faith in it being so? The fact that you acknowledge there are other morals codes out there has already fulfilled my BOP. ****MY CASE**** C1: SUBJECTIVE RESOLUTIONI don't want to waste a whole lot of time here, as my opponent really has not argued anything new. For this point I am just going to say that in my opinion, the words used in defining morality, are subjective. They note specifically that in order to have morality, a person must choose to believe what they believe. My opponent accepted this definition. He has not argued that it's meaning suggests that a single morality is fallible, thus we must assume that he agrees that morality is Subjective. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Key word: Distinction. C2: ABSOLUTE MORALITY IS FALLIBLESUB A: THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTMy opponent admits that in order for the Christian morality to be true, than it must be accepted by a persons faith. This was all I wanted. He cannot prove then for 100% fact that his Christian morality is objective true. He admits that Other religions can be accepted upon by faith. So the question is un-answered. Outside of our own beliefs, how can we determine one being objectively true? The argument my opponent is making: "We just can" Doesn't seem to make sense to me. SUB B: SOCIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT On the cookie analogy. I am not making a case here to prove that what the child is doing is inherently wrong. The point of this argument was to prove that the distinction of what wrong and right is, will be determined by the individual. That boy may agree later on in life that the cookie spoils his appetite, and may choose to change his morals based on that premise alone. But early on in witnessing his father, his morality will be different as he learned it is okay to eat cookies before dinner. Thus with several moralities existing before him, he has no choice but to create his own based on what he is learning as a child. Morality than becomes Subjective. ****VOTERS****Dear Voters, I know there has been a lot of back and forth arguing about virtually the same thing. I have attempted to steer away from that as much as possible. But I am now going to outline, why I believe I have one this debate. ARGUMENTS: My opponent has finally accepted that there are different moral codes. I'll let you make what you will of the rest of the debate. SOURCES: I have provided a vast plethora of sources, as opposed to a couple quotes from a favorite author. I have provided in my opinion, a superior support and analysis for this debate. With that said, I thank the voters once again for your time in reading this debate.