There Exists an Objective Moral Law

*****FRAMEWORK***** First I will Refute the point my opponent brings to the debate. Next I will go into definitions and their importance to this debate (My opponent has not pointed out any discrepancies with them, so we must assume that he is okay with the definitions provided). Finally I will touch down on my case with whatever remaining characters I have. *****MY OPPONENTS CASE***** ETHICAL JUDGEMENTSOkay so my opponent brings up an interesting point here, one that I am grateful that he has done, such that it will save me space for additional arguments in my case. The point he comes up with here is on whether the Judgements of right and wrong being controversial, hints to morality being Objective. He states four reasons clearly, on why he feels this way. I would like to take time to respond to each one of these reasons. 1) Moral disagreements would make no sense (as we all assume they do). Ah, moral Dis-agreements, the crux of controversy in the world we live in! My question here is simply what makes this bullet an objective stand point? The very fact that moral relativism exists in the world, and is recognized by you, should hint to the fact that one or the other cannot specifically be right? Can it? If so I would love to hear about which one objectively is moral. My question is if moral dis-agreements exists (which they do), then what is the moral objective law we must follow? What is the correct moral objective law if we all seem to dis-agree on what morality seemingly is?2) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (for example, you could not say that the Nazis were wrong for killing all those Jews during the Holocaust). Meaningless criticisms eh? What exactly qualifies a criticism as meaningful? You state that you feel that A universal law can exist without human subsidiaries present. The Nazi's themselves (maybe not all) had the belief that what they were doing was right. They had their own ideals that they themselves formulated which led to the actions brought forth from the holocaust. Whether we agree with their morals or not is irrelevant, as we are at least recognizing that the Nazi's had their own set of morals. By recognizing this, we must know and understand that morality is subjective. 3) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. This is completely correct sir. Even more so that when we are raised with a moral system, we can choose to stick with it, or create our own moral system. By following the standards in that moral system, we can then determine the feelings that C. S. Lewis has when he violates his own moral code. But in truth, Mr. Lewis's moral code is just that; His own.4) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do. This reminds me of a clip from a south park episode that I wouldn't mind quoting here. "If I had wheels, I'd be a wagon" -Craig. Just like Cartman had done with taking false credit for a joke he did not write, he has adjusted his moral values, such that they were guilt free and pleasing to himself. Him creating his own set of moral values proves subjectivity. However what is moral law KeytarHero? I see on your profile that you are con abortion (as I am). Does a woman who gets an abortion feel the need to make an excuse of for getting an abortion? What if she was raised her whole life knowing that their was nothing wrong with getting an abortion, and that is was in fact a moral choice? To you and me, this woman has committed an act of immorality. But what about the 50% of other members who happen to agree with abortion? Are people like BlackVoid, Royalpaladin, F-16_Fighting_Falcon and the other 50% of members who agree with abortion coherently wrong? What is the determining factor in deciding which morality is the right one? If any of those 50% of members happens does not feel guilt in accordance to having an abortion, does this now mean that they are committing an act of morality? Simply the question is, what is the fine line for determining which morality is proper? . http://www.debate.org... The following descriptions of the rapist, and the man who kills his kid to feed his dog, you must realize, are exclusive only to your perception of what morality is. In order to have a universal law, we must have unanimous human feelings towards a similar concept of morality. ****MY CASE**** C1: THE RESOLUTION IS DEFINED IN SUBJECTIVE TERMS Let's break down a few key words from above such that we can achieve a better knowledge of the debate at hand. Exists: to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not. . http://dictionary.reference.com...The word "Exists" proposed that upon recognition of something, we must understand that it has actual meaning. So if we recognize the difference in ideals than that must mean there is a subjective set views around the world. Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. . http://dictionary.reference.com...This word to me is the most important key word for this debate, and is the crux of argumentation for both the Pro, and the Con. The word moral is defined specifically with the word distinction. I feel the word distinction is powerful enough to break this word down a little further. Distinction: the recognizing or noting of differences;. http://dictionary.reference.com...This word implies that in order for an individual to make a moral choice, they themselves must provide their own reasoning and moral attitude as to why that specific choice is in fact moral or unmoral. Given that a distinction is made of one's own accordance, this definition already implies that humans must make a subjective choice in order to define morality. This my friends, will be the main underlying goal I will attempt to show to our audience throughout the remainder of this debate. C2: ABSOLUTE MORALITY IS FALLIBLE. http://www.rationality.net... Please Source the link above for all arguments made in this category. SUB A: Theological Absolute Morality is fallible: "There is never any clear, objective, historical chain that might clarify and establish the authenticity of the authorship of religious texts. These writings have been copied innumerable times and have become less and less focused with each copying process. As a result, religious writings have become so ambiguous and nebulous that it is often necessary to substantially re-interpret or re-phrase their meaning. "This quote could not be more true. Not only are their values sourced on hypothesis's pulled from ancient books, and unfactual based religions, there are also countless religions with differing beliefs. Discerning one to be Absolute is Near impossible. We recognize that opposing moralities "exist" Thus we recognize that morality is subjective. SUB B: The Sociological Argument for relative morality. An objective morality becomes a fallible principle when weighing in human expressions. When a Human being is presented with moral confrontation, it has something to do with infringing on the rights or causing harm to another individual. Take other human beings away, and absolute Morality becomes invisible. In reference to the link above, a lone stranded survivor on an island is not bound to any moral laws. There are no other persons whose right he can infringe upon, and thus can create his own laws and rules for his existence upon the island. If there is no absolute binding law for morality, then this man could hypothetically create his own society upon which he could set his own subjective set of rules. *****CONCLUSION*****Based on the arguments I have provided, I feel I have adequately proven that is impossible for an absolute or objective morality to exist. I look forward to my opponents response,Thankyou.