There Exists an Objective Moral Law

Thank you again to TUF for his opening argument. Indeed, I did not see anything I would take issue with in his definitions, bearing in mind that I did give my own definitions in round one. In the interest of space, I have abbreviated the headings.1 -- Moral disagreementsThe reason moral disagreements point to an objective law is because if there was no objective moral law, then we would have no basis for our moral disagreements. As C.S. Lewis has written, "a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." [1] What is the point of arguing over matters of morality if one does not believe their view is correct? Even relativists believe their view to be correct, and if moral subjectivity would be correct, then that, indeed, would be an objective moral law (i.e. "morality is subjective" would be an objective truth). But not even relativists can live as relativists at all times. Even a relativist would get upset if you steal money from them or cut in front of them in line.2 -- Moral CriticismsSimply saying that the Nazis lived by a different moral code than ours is irrelevant. If morality were truly subjective, we would have no right to say that Nazis were wrong, and therefore it would be completely acceptable for another Hitler to come along and have another Holocaust. But I don't know of anyone who would say that another Holocaust would be completely okay, as long as those people believed that what they were doing is morally acceptable. If morality was truly subjective, then Hitler was really no different than Mother Teresa.3 -- Keeping Promises and TreatiesI don't think TUF's objection here is truly relevant to the issue at hand. I don't know anyone who would say it's okay to make promises with the intention of breaking them. I don't know anyone who teaches their kids it's okay to lie, or it's okay to break promises if it can result in personal gain. It's the responsibility of parents to raise their kids to be generally moral citizens. Lying is not illegal in our country (with the exception of perjury), yet we still try to raise our children to be honest people.4 -- Breaking the Moral LawI'm not sure quoting South Park is a great way to prove subjective morality, since Cartman is a cartoon character, who is written that way. I don't deny that there are people who don't feel guilty when they do wrong, but those people we label as psychotics and lock them away in a mental institution (especially if they feel no remorse after killing someone). We may give lip service to subjective morality, but I think deep down we all know that there are some things which are simply wrong.I am, indeed, con abortion. But I would ask, TUF, why you are con abortion. If you are con abortion, but feel that morality is subjective and a woman who approves of it should be able to get an abortion, shouldn't you be pro abortion? Even if you are personally opposed to it, shouldn't you be pro so that a woman who approves of it should be able to get an abortion if she feels she needs it?I would say that, yes, the members who support abortion are wrong (does that surprise you, considering I'm arguing for objective morality? ;) ). And I would gladly debate them on the issue (as I have done in the past). The unborn are innocent humans, and it is wrong to kill innocent humans. I have no problem saying that abortion is objectively wrong.As I stated in my opening round, "objective" means independent of the human mind. In order to have a universal moral law, all humans do not necessarily have to agree on it. It exists independently to all humans recognizing it, just like the Earth has always revolved around the sun, even when common belief held that the sun revolved around the Earth.My analogies still stand and remain unrefuted, since I'm sure most (if not all) people can agree that it is worse for a man to kill his son to feed his dog than for a man to kill his dog to feed his son. And I don't know anyone who would say that rape is morally acceptable for anyone who believes it to be so.TUF's CaseTUF's own definition of "exists" refutes his case. "The world exists, whether you like it or not." Whether you like it or not. People do not have to agree that the world exists in order for it to be so.C1 -- Subjective ResolutionMost people recognize morality, even if they make a choice that goes against their personal morality. For example, someone may decide never to make any sacrifices for another person, because they only have so long to live and don't want to squander what little time they have. However, even a person who lives selfishly and would never make a sacrifice for someone else due to their own personal morality, can still recognize a selfless act and praise it (such as someone feeding the hungry or giving their life in the protection of others). Personal subjective morality does not disprove an objective morality. Just because people disagree on something does not mean there isn't a correct answer. There are many different religions that all disagree on key doctrines, but that doesn't mean that one of them isn't true.C2 -- Absolute Morality is FallibleSub A -- Theological Absolute Morality is FallibleChristians can actually make a solid case for Christianity being true, and therefore the God of the Bible's morality is the correct one. To say that during each copying process the writings become less focused is simply not true. They have been translated into many different languages, but we have overwhelming manuscript evidence (dating back to very close to the originals) that the message of the Biblical Scriptures has not been changed. Furthermore, Christianity is actually a factual based religion. Christianity is a religion based in history that can be historically verified. In fact, the Bible is one of the few holy books (if not the only one) that actually encourages you to test its claims.Sub B -- The Sociological Argument for relative moralityThe problem with the man on the island is that if he starts a society with other people, in order to be fair to the others, he would have to set some standards (such as making murder, theft, and rape illegal), which are objectively immoral due to the fact that they harm others. Which is worse, telling someone they can't behave a way that would be harmful to someone else, or telling someone they can because you don't want to infringe on their personal morality? The very fact that you are concerned with not wanting to cause harm on another shows that there is objective morality.ConclusionTUF has not shown that objective morality exists. Just the opposite: the fact that we can argue about morality shows that there is an objective morality, for one cannot know what is wrong unless he/she has some idea of what is right. Additionally, it is simply impossible to live as a relativist at all times. The existence of an objective morality seems more likely.I thank TUF again for his argument, and I look forward to his response.[1] Lewis, Clive Staples, Mere Christianity, p. 45.