Morality is an objective truth

Thank you con. I'm also finding this debate incredibly interesting. I wasn't expecting rebuttals until the 3rd round. It's all good though, we'll make it work. References in Language: Con starts off his rebuttal asking this, in reference to my claim that our language refers to an objective morality; "Is it not true that the large majority of people believe their moral code to be correct? And that language would reflect that?" This is absolutely correct, and I can find no reason to disagree with him here. However, one of the key points in my original argument was that people across cultures agree on what it means to be "good" or do what's "right". Is it not strange that people who live across the world and have different rituals, customs, religions, even eat different food, all share the same understanding of what it means to be good? If morality is based off societal preference, why is it that societies that have completely difference cultures still have nearly that same moral laws and attitudes? Con's Rebuttal to the Culture Argument: Shortly proceeding con's question referring to language references he states that cultures that have the same moral codes are likely due to globalization. The example he gives is Japan and its emphasis on honor before it became a global economy. I disagree with the idea that this is due to globalization, and I think I can show you why using one key reason. Societies, not only in our modern times like he refers to but also throughout history, have all supported the same moral precepts. An example would be Platonic moral principles, which shifts the focus from ourselves on to service towards others. A moral idea that is still supported today. If globalization is the reason cultures that are vastly different support the same moral principles, then how does it explain moral similarities between time? In fact, society back then didn't have globalization at all. Therefore, the answer cannot be globalization, but rather another reason must be present. I assert a moral objectivity, which all members of the human race are aware of, as this reason. Con's use of Japan's emphasis on honor is interesting. Honor in itself is not a moral principle, but a societal outlook on someone or something. However if we look at the way the Japanese believed they could gain honor, we see the same moral principles that we use pop up again and again. To quote from an article published by PBS, honor in Japan was gained by, "loyalty, courage, humility, forbearance, generosity, and self-control." These are the same moral principles that are accepted today and have been accepted by cultures across time. I further contend that Japan's change in law to censor pornography is synonymous with America's change in slavery. The society saw the immorality, and attempted to correct it. Con on Morality throughout the Ages: My opponent does concede that moral laws have remained consistent throughout the ages, but points out that there are exceptions to these moral absolutes. This is a very interesting point by con. Exceptions to murder do exist. In combat it is not considered immoral to kill someone who threatens your own or another's life. He also points out the exception with theft. However, if an objective moral law exists, it would not necessarily contain absolutes. In fact, I'd say the majority of the societies con and I have referred to support the idea that murder is wrong, but killing in combat is generally not. If a moral law exists, could not it also contain that exception? Con also goes on to give a definition of rape. After which he concludes that there once was a time that rape was not immoral if it was done with your wife. In the source he used to get the old definition of the word rape it states directly afterwards, "This meant that in the eyes of the law a man could not rape his wife - nor could a man rape another man." It states a man could not rape his wife in the eyes of the law, not that it was moral or thereby accepted. I believe that this is a jump in logic and would rather challenge my opponent to find a society that stated it was not immoral for a man to rape his wife (or another man for that matter). Con’s Comments on the Gray Areas: My opponent explains that if people don’t always see the objective moral code, then what’s the point of its existence? He then states that based on that it might as well be subjective. I disagree with my opponent here. I believe an objective moral code exists within us the same way human instinct does. It certainly isn’t binding, I do not have to be a virtuous person, in the same way that I do not have to have sex with my skinny good-looking neighbor. I get to choose. And whether or not I choose the correct path does not determine whether that path exists. Con on the Subject of Slavery: Con makes a great point when he asks, "If there was an objective moral code against slavery, how could it have happened to begin with?" Definitely an excellent point by my opponent here. However, slavery itself was never considered intrinsically moral. But rather society would continually try to justify it by stating that the slaves had better lives while being in slavery than they did while free. Or that the race of the slaves was so inferior it needed guidance from the superior race. Furthermore, I want us to try to imagine a society that does consider slavery moral. A society that doesn’t need to justify slavery because it is as good as generosity is to us. A society that points to slavery and says, "Yes, that’s the right thing to do." and leaves it at that. No further explanation is required, all is understood. Personally, I cannot imagine a society that could ever exist in such a way. Slavery is objectively and intrinsically wrong. Con on People who have no Morals: My opponent here states that since there are people, who have mental disorders, that have no morality, it is thus proven that there is no objective morality. I believe this to be a fallacy. There are people with disorders who believe that their limbs are not theirs, does that make human biology a myth? Is the construct of my body subjective to myself? In the same way morality. Often times those with mental disorders are not able to think clearly and make correct decisions. How then does it conflict with the idea of an objective morality? Con's Personal Reasoning:An objective morality is not binding. Like human instinct, this objective morality exists in all of us, but we can still reject it. Con Referring to my Conclusion: My opponent goes through the list I gave him that he must accept as true if he believes morality is subjective. Referring to what he said about the first and third statements I gave him (murder, rape, pedophilia, and slavery / harming others is not objectively wrong): I am surprised that he would agree to these but also admire his honesty. If morality were subjective: rape, murder, pedophilia, slavery, and harming other would not be inherently wrong and a society could even accept them as "moral" if it would suit their interests. Referring to what he said about the second statement I gave him (The US condemning the Nazi’s): What he said is true, the US joined the war in large part due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. However, I was not referring to the reason for war but rather the fact that America still condemned what the Nazi’s did. If morality were subjective, the US, nor did anyone else, have any ground to say the Nazi’s were in the wrong. I’ll await my opponent’s response to this in his next post. I hand it over to you con!References: Japan on honor: http://www.pbs.org... Old definition of rape: http://www.stoa.org... The "Justification" of Slavery: http://www.virgin-islands-history.org... Body Integrity Identity Disorder: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...