Resolved: Objective Morality is real

Q1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles (according to rational men) that is the truth, for example, concerning life, liberty, and happiness.

If something is there, then intelligent and logical beings will agree it is there.

It does not matter what irrational think; it is there.

Therefore all rational people who have ability to observe, are forced to admit the object is there.

As such, all rational human beings ought to be able to observe some sense of the "Good" or "Bad" in the world to prove that it objectively exists.

 Even though it is a vague idea, merely requiring observation to prove and interpret, does not mean it is objective

(ex: we require a person looking through a microscope and interpreting bacteria to know it exists. Scientists can come up with consensus, based on definition of bacteria, that bacteria exist. This doesn't mean bacteria are subjective)

Q2: In the case of humans, it is because what our species believes its transcendental set of moral principles are (derived from "nature of man").

Despite different views, all of them concern similar ideas (freedom, love, universal rights, etc.). 

The Declaration of Independence says, "all men are born with equal rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", claiming its self-evident nature.

While we have had seemingly contradictory views in regards to other people, there is no refuting that all men believe that themselves hold these natural rights.

We think of ourselves as important.

It is the only thing that has allowed us to survive so far. Because human's evolutionary traits are pre-determined to let oneself survive, this common nature in man is beyond our control and self thoughts.

Conflicts of precisely what the judgements of society is based upon doesn't negate the more objective morality.

Whether egoism defeats utilitarianism is something else entirely.

Merely because we can value some lives over another, does not mean they have no rights. So any culture that seems to contradict this merely values these at a different level, rather than say they do not exist at all.

Q3: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously, shown within disputes that are comparable to a universal standard.

As Misterchris notes, if there was no universal standard, you could say "your argument is BS", and dismiss it.

But throughout different cultures we have cultivated disagreements, coming to agreement, and other ideas that imply there is a transcendental standard.

If "Gravity" definition could change merely based on people's sayings, rather than a formal dictionary, then we could not prove that gravity objectively exists.

Even though humans assigned "gravity" word arbitrarily to the idea, the idea of things being attracted to a heavy object still exists, even if in other languages it is not exactly "gravity" in pronunciation or spelling.

The meaning will retain the same value in the end, and so the debates over contradictory values can still refer to objective morality existing somewhere.

The reasoning behind this, is that humans are genetically disposed to protect one self, their family, and their cultures. The weighing of survival and suffering among different cultures, is seen throughout human history, which proves the basic ideals being backed by entirety of humanity.

Scientific evidence has shown the result of this. A scholarly study basically says the exact same thing I did, except more wordy: "An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development. Morality is a key factor in the success of human groups in competition or co-existence with one another. A group's moral code represents an increasingly rational pattern of behavior derived from the collective experience of the group handed down from generation to generation. Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns. Further, morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns. "

As you can see, even though our genes before could seem to contradict this idea -- we cannibalize people, we commit murder, etc.

The specific cases does not negate the overall more objective morality developments. 

do not have to make the case of, should Aztec people sacrifice men to the Gods. They had their personal beliefs and genetic history that led up to this moment in time. Even though killing an innocent itself can be subjective morality, the idea of protecting yourself and the culture ("The Gods demand a sacrifice!") is still upheld. So no contradiction exists here.

I think Con misunderstands my arguments.

Essential basis is the evolution outweighing our minds and essentially forcing us to inherently value ourselves and gives us natural rights.

When Aztecs believe that Gods want sacrifice, they often think that the alternative is to let the God destroy their whole entire tribe. The lack of information presented doesn't negate the idea that we naturally value our own lives and have ideals that transcend mere thought.

It's like Con's belief in determinism as well. We ourselves have no conscious control over the resulting decisions and morality that we make.

If I am coerced ahead of myself to be forced into doing something, then obviously this is not due to my personal thoughts. If something outside of my control pre-controlled my motions and movements, then I cannot be held morally responsible and be called to said to be immoral.

As such, the genetic predisposition holds up and we must have the natural rights to live and liberty, if only to different degrees depending on the culture.

Because Con cannot offer a good grounding to base upon why we should reject the natural rights of humanity, the pre-determined variables of the universe basically force us to already agree that we must value lives one way or another. So morality becomes objective rather than subjective. The resolution is upheld.

Con keeps saying there is no fundamental basis outside our minds for the morality of what is right and wrong.

But evolution is scientifically based, and as Con says, science is basically applied philosophy. When science says something is supposed to be one way, with all evidence pointing towards it, then it objectively exists.

All the evidence for speed of light, nature of gravity, are all objective and beyond our mind. Similarly, the genetic nature of humanity is far beyond our own thought controls.

As such, science which is the fact nature of the universe goes to show what is meant to be. Our minds are meant to value ourselves and culture, based on scientific patterns and analysis.

No culture has failed to value our own culture that we belong to.

Whatever things have universal traits and outcome must be objective.

For example, no matter what I personally think, dropping a heavy bowling ball will lower by the force of gravity. So gravity exists beyond us, and is controlled by heavy/dense objects. Similarly, no matter what I think myself, I cannot control or outweigh the idea of human life being used within morality. Therefore morality is objective.