There Exists an Objective Moral Law

I did agree to allow him to use sourcing in the debate. I’ll do likewise if my response doesn’t fit in the 8,000 character limit. 1. Moral Disagreements Con asserts that there may be some people who would call a straight line crooked, but hasn’t provided any examples of any such people. The reality is that a line is straight when it’s straight. If it’s bent at all, then it would be crooked. You could call a straight line crooked, but you would be incorrect. A straight line is straight regardless of whether someone else thought it was crooked. A stick in a pool of water may appear crooked, but this is just an illusion. The stick, itself, is still straight. In the example Con used of colorblindness, yes, he would be wrong if he called a red apple pink. He may perceive it as pink due to his partial colorblindness, but the apple is still red regardless of how either of us perceive it. Try running a red light, then telling the police officer who pulled you over that you perceived the light as green so you shouldn’t receive a ticket, and see if you’ll get out of a ticket that way. 2. Moral Criticisms I really don’t think I’ve misunderstood Con’s argument here. If morality is subjective, then we have no right to tell Hitler he was wrong for killing all those Jews. Therefore, it was morally acceptable for him. It would also be morally acceptable for another Hitler to come along and commit another Holocaust. We may disagree with his morality, but it’s okay for him because morality is subjective. We would only have a right to stop him if murder was objectively wrong, despite his believing that killing Jews is morally acceptable.3. Keeping Promises and Treaties It is true that sometimes it is justified to do something immoral for a higher moral purpose (e.g. it is morally right to lie to protect an innocent person from death), but all this would point to is there is a hierarchy of morality, not subjective morality. Lying is still objectively wrong, but it is worse to kill an innocent person than to lie, so lying to protect an innocent person fulfills a higher moral purpose. However, breaking a promise for personal gain is wrong, and a parent is being negligent in teaching their children that they should break their word whenever it benefits them. This is quite different from lying to protect an innocent person. 4. Breaking the Moral Law I understand the reference to South Park (I have been known to make reference to science fiction in my debates), it would simply help to appeal to a real-life example to show how this could happen (e.g., appealing to Superman would not prove that human beings can fly). When I refer to psychotics, I’m not referring to someone who disagrees with my position. I don’t believe Atheists or Muslims to be psychotic. However, there are some things which are deemed as objectively wrong, so someone who can perform the acts without remorse are labeled psychotics and locked away in mental institutions. At the heart of it, I think it can be shown that most people realize an objective morality exists. Using Cartman as an example, even if someone re-wires their brain to accept a different morality, that doesn’t negate objective morality, it just shows that some people will go to great lengths to prevent themselves from feeling guilty over performing an immoral act. Now, it seems to me that Con believes that morality is subjective, but not everyone should be able to act upon their subjective morality. For example, he is still con abortion, believing that no woman should ever have an abortion. He also indicated earlier that we should not allow another Hitler to commit a Holocaust. But what good is subjective morality if one cannot act upon their moral standards? You can say, “well, you can act on it as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.” But that’s an objective moral statement! Telling Hitler that he can’t kill a Jew because they can’t harm someone is appealing to an objective moral truth, that harming or killing innocent people is wrong. This goes back to my earlier statement that it is impossible to live as a moral relativist. I can recognize that other moral codes exist, but again, this does not negate the existence of an objective morality. There are many different religions that all claim to hold the truth despite all being contradictory in key doctrines. Just because they all hold the truth doesn’t mean they are all wrong. One of them may be correct, and many of them may have true aspects to them. In the same way, just because people hold to contradictory moral codes does not negate the existence of an objective morality. One of them may be the correct moral code, and many of them may havetrue aspects. Con’s Case C1 – Subjective Resolution I have already explained how this proves my case: the existence of other moral codes does not negate the existence of an objective moral code. And if an objective moral code exists, it is one in which all humans should act upon. I also don’t deny that some acts of selfishness are morally justified. But not at the expense of others. For example, if you are in a burning building with others trying to get out, you are not justified in shooting other people to increase your chances of escaping unscathed. C2 – Absolute Morality is Fallbile Sub A: Theological objective morality is fallible It is true that ultimately, the existence of God must be accepted on faith. However, a case can be made that God’s existence is more likely than not (in fact, there is a Moral Argument for God’s existence that is often used as part of a cumulative case). Con’s entire case rests on claiming that the existence of other, subjective moralities negates an objective morality. I have already shown why this is not the case. Con has not made a case for why Christian morality should be disregarded as the objective one. Jewish morality was based on the Ten Commandments, not Christianity morality. Christian morality is largely based on loving others and living in peace with them, and loving God (though of course, loving God would only be accepted by those who believe God exists in the first place). Sub B: The Sociological Argument for relative morality is fallible Regarding Con’s question of harming others, Con, himself, has agreed that one should not harm others (which seems like an objective truth). He has already agreed that women should not have abortions, even if they believe it is right, and another Hitler should not be allowed to commit another Holocaust. But if morality were truly subjective, then we should allow others to do whatever their morality tells them is okay. What right would we have to stop them? The only right we would have is if these things were objectively wrong. Regarding Con’s analogy of the cookie jar, the mother is acting responsibly in telling the child not to eat a cookie before dinner. This is because eating a cookie before dinner may spoil his appetite. Now, he could grow into an adult that likes to eat cookies before dinner, despite his mother’s warnings. But this doesn’t make his mother’s warnings unfounded. Cookies can still spoil a person’s appetite, whether they believe it is okay to have a cookie before dinner. Additionally, even if we agree that eating a cookie before dinner is subjectively immoral, the only person he’s harming in this case is himself. So the objective morality already established in this debate of not to harm anyone else is still being kept, even though he disregards his mother’s advice and has a cookie before dinner. Conclusion I have shown why the existence of subjective moralities does not negate an objective morality. Even though they all contradict one another, that does not mean there is not one that is correct, or that they all don’t at least hold some morals that line up with the objective morality. I thank Con for a stimulating debate.