I want to start out by thanking Professor Coel Hellier for joining me in this debate. As I have said before, I think that it’s important for those who disagree to come to the table with their ideas and opinions and discuss them in a civil way. I have enjoyed these debates because instead of two men bantering back and forth, we address each other indirectly and let the audience (readers) sort out the truth.
The subject of this debate is whether morality is objective or subjective. First, let us define our terms.
Defining Our Terms
Objective Moral Values and Duties are moral values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion.
Subjective Morality means that morality itself is dependent of each person’s personal opinion.
Professor Hellier has, more or less, defined Objective Morality in his own blog the same way that I have defined it here. So we both agree on the definition of Objective Morality. If he disagrees with my definition of Subjective Morality, then I will await his, presumably, more clear definition since he is the one who will be advocating for it. However, I think that we will agree, for the most part, on the terms.
In this debate, I am going to defend two basic contentions:
- That objective moral values and duties do exist.
- That morality is not exclusively subjective.
The evidence that I will give to support my first contention is as follows:
- Personal Experience and Common Sense – Clear examples of things that most everyone would agree are objectively evil.
- Evidence against a Sociologically Conditioned Morality – “The Baby Lab”
- Universal Ethics
- Expert Testimony
1. Personal Experience and Common Sense
Let me give you a common example of objective morality. I’ve used it before but it bares repeating given our topic.
Holocaust Example
Everything that the Nazis did during the Holocaust was 100% legal, 100% accepted by their culture and society, and 100% in line with their personal convictions. Was what Hitler and the Nazis did, in exterminating the Jews, evil?
This is an extreme example but that doesn’t make it any less true. If you believe that morality is purely subjective, like Professor Hellier, then you cannot say that what Hitler and the Nazis did during the Holocaust was evil according to any model that supports moral relativism. If, however, you do believe that what the Nazis did, by exterminating the Jews during the Holocaust, was evil, then you believe that at least one objective moral value and duty exists. This is a very simple explanation that gives credence to the fact that at least some objective moral values and duties exist.
Likewise, do you believe that the terrorism perpetrated on 9/11 was evil? If so then you must believe in objective morality. If you take a relativistic position, then you cannot say that it was an act of evil because those who carried it out thought that it was good according to their religious beliefs. The Professor can only say that he thinks or feels that it was not morally acceptable. “But what is evil to me may not be evil for you.”
But, perhaps, Professor Hellier will concede that he does not believe that these two examples were acts of evil. Then we will move to further evidence for objective moral values and duties.
According to these two extreme examples, we can see that some things are objectively evil.
2. Evidence against a Sociologically Conditioned Morality – “The Baby Lab”
Do we learn our morals from our parents and others or are we born with them? It has long been believed that morality is a sociological conditioning over the period of one’s life. However, studies have shown that morals are, in fact, found in infants as young as three or six months old. At Yale’s Infant Cognition Center, nicknamed “The Baby Lab,” Dr. Karen Wynn has done extensive research that we are born with a sense of morality (CNN report on Baby Lab). So, due to this evidence, I think that we can rule out sociological moral conditioning.
3. Universal Morals and Ethics
In this world there are many different cultures. These cultures are very different in many different ways. In some cultures people shake hands as a greeting, in others they bow. In some they pat the head of a child to show affection, in others to touch the head is strictly forbidden. The languages, dress, and ethical standards differ sharply across cultural boundaries. So why is it that the moral standard is so similar across the board?
In virtually all societies, murder, rape, theft, and other moral issues are strikingly consistent. Professor Hellier would have us believe that it is because evolution has programmed morality in such a way that all peoples have essentially the same view on main moral issues. But would it not be more plausible, if the Moral-Evolutionary Theory were true, that evolution would be observably more advanced in some races of people than others? If macro-evolution is true then just as some species are more advanced than others, wouldn’t it be obvious that different kinds within a species would also exhibit different rationales and codes of behavior?
I would maintain that the only way that morality could be so consistent across the cultural line is if there is a common source from which morality was derived. I think that the best explanation for this is that we, the human race, were made in the image of a single morally perfect Being, and that the conviction, that is the emotional and psychological pain, that stems from our immoral behaviors is as a result of a deviating from that moral perfection for which we were created.
4. Expert Testimony
This is purely statistical evidence but is compelling because of the results. Morality falls into the realm of philosophy. As such, philosophers are the closest thing that we have to experts on the subject. The amount of philosophers who are moral realists outnumber the moral relativists approximately two to one (The Largest-ever Survey of Philosophers). Also, in the same survey, the number who profess atheism is a staggering 72.8% oppose to only 14.6% who claim theism. From a merely statistical standpoint, these numbers are going to be difficult to argue against.
The Moral Argument
The moral argument goes as follows:
- If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
- At least one moral value and duty exists.
- Therefore, God exists.
Now, we are not debating the existence of God so this argument does not help my case in any way. I just want to explain how and why Professor Hellier and I differ, as well as the ramifications if we are to think that objective morality does not exist. Also, since the initial burden of proof is on me, given the proposition, I still seem to have less of a burden than the Professor. Prof. Hellier is going to have to show that all morals are purely subjective in nature. However, if I can show that some, or even just one, objective moral value and duty exists then I think that I have carried the burden.
Contention #2 – Morality is no exclusively subjective.
Professor Hellier’s View
The good Professor believes, I presume, in the first premise. Of course, he does not believe that God exists, therefore, he does not believe that objective moral values and duties exist. However, this debate is on the validity of the second premise.
Professor Hellier believes that morality came about through evolutionary processes in order to facilitate human flourishing on this planet. But in his blogs he has not given any mechanism by which this could be possible. In other words, if everything can be explained by science, that is by a materialistic worldview, then we should be able to trace the physical evidence of morality through the chain of evolution to a source, or common ancestry. If it cannot be explained by way of physical evidence, then according to science itself, it is not considered to be true. Of course, this is not possible since the issue of morality is not a scientific issue but a philosophical one.
Moral relativism has been around a relatively long time but really came to fruition in the post-modern movement. Post-modernism says that there are no absolute truths and everything is relative. When asked about it, Dr. Ravi Zacharias said that post-modernism is “dying the death of a thousand qualifications.” This is because no one can hold to the view that there is no absolute truth. He went on to say that the one aspect of post-modernism that people will continue to cling to is moral relativism. This is because it is the only way to get rid of God.
I’d like to offer an argument for moral truths…
- If absolute truths do not exist, then objective moral truths do not exist.
- At least some absolute truths exist.
- Therefore, at least some objective moral truths exist.
Surely, Prof. Hellier does not believe that there are no absolute truths. However, if absolute truths do exist, then how can one simply cast away absolute moral values and duties? Now, I’m not saying that every “truth” is absolute. Some things people differ in their opinions and one opinion is as valid as another. That is what makes them opinions and not truth. However, there are some, in fact many, truths that are absolute. As a parallel, morality is much the same way. Our opinions can differ on certain moral issues but that is not to say that there are no objective moral truths.
Examples:
- Murder is evil.
- Compassion is good.
- Rape is evil.
- Hospitality is good.
Prof. Hellier cannot affirm any of these very simple and self-evident statements. All he can say is that he thinks or feels that one is better than the other, but that does not mean that it’s true, because there is no moral truth. Immediately we can see the flaws in his view of morality.
I assume that Prof. Hellier will want me to give evidence for his “Absolute Shouldness Scale” as he puts forth in one of his blogs. He seems to imply that Moral Realists are searching fervently for this “Absolute Shouldness Scale” and without it we have no basis for believing in Objective Morality. He says…
Perhaps the biggest red-herring in mankind’s history has been the quest for the false grail of Absolute Ethics, the idea that there is an Absolute Shouldness Scale, and that if we could consult the scale we would know for sure whether we “should” do X or “should” do Y or “should not” do Z. (Science can answer moral questions).
As I have said, one can distinguish between good and evil the same way one distinguishes between truth and opinion. There is no scale by which to measure what is more true than something else. This is where the Law of Non-Contradiction comes in. If we have two truths before us, how can we measure which is more true than the other? By definition, if they are both true then one cannot be more true than the other. By comparison, if we have two mutually exclusive truths then one of them cannot be true. Now, there is a grey area and that is what we call opinion. But an opinion is not truth unless it is backed up with facts. Then it is no longer an opinion, it’s truth.
In much the same way, if we are presented with two evils it makes no sense to say that one is more or less evil than the other. One may have a worse effect or consequences but evil does not measure on a scale. It simply is evil. The same is true with good. We can say that something is better than something else but all we mean is that it will have a more beneficial result or may lead to more potentially good options. Also in talking about good and evil there is a grey area. Often we debate these grey areas in the public arena of ideas. But to say that morality can only be objective if it can be put on a scale to be measured is simply not true.
The fact of the matter is that the way that we measure good and evil is with our conscience. And the only logical way to explain why such a vast amount of different peoples, nations, cultures, and races share such a consistent moral standard is if we all have a common source from which our conscience stems. And the only reason that one would be emotionally and psychologically damaged from committing an immoral act like murder is if we have deviated from the perfect moral standard that such a source must have created us to achieve.
Even in the animal kingdom we typically don’t see lions killing each other. However, when it does happen we don’t seem to have any indication that the lion who killed the other is in any way convicted about his actions. There’s no reason to think that he is remorseful in any way. This is because animals are not moral agents. Humans are very unique in this way. And I don’t think that this uniqueness can be explained by evolution.
– Anthony Freeland
Truth, Interrupted 
Hi, I read through your post and had some thoughts. I had intended to just have them be a reply here, but I feel like they are too lengthy for just being a comment. Would you mind if I make a post of my own in response to this?
LikeLike
Sure. Send me a link.
LikeLike
Logic too wishy washy and too many instances of begging the questions. Just one case of baby lab does not exclude other cases of social engineering.
LikeLike
Two things. First, there is no circular reasoning(or begging the question) in my initial post. This is a common misuse of the phrase “begging the question.” Second, as far as I know Prof. Hellier doesn’t believe in socially engineered morality either. He believes in evolutionary engineered morality. That is why I didn’t spend a lot of time on the “Baby Lab” or any other part of my opening statement. I simply outlined my arguments and await his opening statements. However, if these are the only issues that you have then I think it turned out pretty good. Thanks for your comment.
LikeLike
Oh, I thought I was proofreading a school assignment. Sorry!
LikeLike
All questions and concerns are welcome here. We encourage opposition. But mockery will not be tolerated. I welcome your point of view but I will not allow any Christian to beat up on my nonbelieving guests and I expect the same courtesy. Thank you.
LikeLike
You aught to mention the Golden Rule, because it is a very good instance of objective moralism. Any sort of evolutionary exploitation breaks it, so it is independent of such forces and yet stands by itself.
LikeLike
Hi, a couple things:
1) I saw that Oscar Rivera has responded to you. Oscar and I go way back, and I’d like to chime in, so is it ok if I answer Oscar?
2) Do you have a link to Professor Helier’s own post that you’re addressing?
LikeLike
1. Sure. Could you send me a link. I think it’s pretty cool that other debates are spawning off of this one.
2. I’m not responding to the Professor, but we have agreed on the terms of a formal or semi-formal debate and this is my opening statements. He has written some on morality though. If you want to check our his blog he’s at:https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/about/
LikeLike
Hi All,
Here is my reply to Anthony’s above post:
Cheers, Coel.
LikeLike
Anthony,
It seems you only assert that there are objective moral truths, and the examples you give you only assert that there are. Where you have listed arguments they contain premises that are typically based on the assertions you are using, about God or morals. So, as a whole, it appears very much like affirming the consequent. You are simply concluding no more than what you assert as premises.
I also think you misrepresent the opposition. There are objective observed facts about humans: that they have what humans label as moral concerns.
– “Personal Experience and Common Sense – Clear examples of things that most everyone would agree are objectively evil.” – For one, it doesn’t matter that most everyone thinks. At one time most everyone subscribed to geocentricsm. You appeal to numbers elsewhere too. So what. Many people can be wrong. In fact it is a claim of your opponents that the common ideas about morality, in from theologians and many philosophers, are wrong. Personal experience and common sense are notoriously poor in all but the common things we have evolved to be accustomed too. Many ‘optical’ illusions are not optical, but mental. The rotating Necker cube that appears to change direction produces optical data consistent with its actual rotation, but the eye-brain cannot see the rotation so accurately, and the brain flips. I’m not sure why you think personal experience and common sense beats science, which has developed methods specifically to overcome the fallibilities of personal experience and common sense.
“Evidence against a Sociologically Conditioned Morality – “The Baby Lab”” – All that shows is that humans develop moral systems within cultures, but based on genetically acquired feelings. This doesn’t even address your metaphysical claims.
“Universal Ethics” – There are no universal ethics. There are variations in ethics, disagreements. But, sure, there is much common ground for most humans. If you assessed individuals over many measures, you’d end up (simplified) with a massive set of normal distributions, and each person may be some complex combination. But statistically there will be some norms. You don’t seem too impressed with the evidence from science, evolution, and so on. But I find this a bit rich when your position stands entirely on assertions from yet further assertions about God and his objective morality. Your argument for God, for example, would fail entirely if there was an objective morality independent of humans that arose entirely within a material cosmos. Why do human and most mammal females not eat their mates after coupling, while some insects do? Morality? Or common evolutionary history?
“Expert Testimony” – I think you are conflating theologians and philosophers. The problem is that many theologians profess to be philosophers, and may hold philosophical positions. But in my book philosophy and theology are (should be) quite different. Philosophy is (or should be) about investigating reality – though much of original philosophy has been made redundant by science, philosophy still has a place. But theologian philosophers are really theologians first, and it seems inevitably engage in twists and turns that a genuine philosopher would not. But, with regard to morality specifically, sciences like evolution, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, sociology tell us much more about human morals than philosophy or theology do. At this point it is usually claimed that science tells us ‘how’ but not ‘why’ Well, theology and philosophy don’t tell us ‘why’ either – they just pretend to do, by making the sorts of assertions you have made here.
I’ve addressed many of the specific points you make here: http://ronmurp.net/2015/03/03/moral-facts-and-opinions/, and in a greater context than you address here.
LikeLike
Okay, here’s a third perspective. To the degree that what is good for us can be objectively determined, morality is objective.
Morality seeks the best possible good and least harm for everyone. We call something “good” if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.
When we look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs we see at the bottom our basic physical survival needs. We can state OBJECTIVELY that a glass of water is good for the person dying of thirst in the desert. We can also state objectively that the same glass of water is bad for the person drowning in a swimming pool. And very few would disagree that caring for those disadvantaged by natural disasters and disease is an objectively moral thing to do.
Unfortunately, as you move up the hierarchy of needs, things become a lot fuzzier.
But there is a theoretical possibility that any moral issue might be resolved objectively by empirical evidence. And that is good for the Humanist position. Medical science, for example, continues to enlighten us about the dangers of smoking, eating too much, and exercising too little.
Moral judgment comes into play every day in many issues, especially in the creation of rules (ethics). We consider alternative rules, like slave ownership versus abolition of slavery, or like marriage defined as male/female versus marriage defined by a bond of love and commitment. In every case, we can estimate the possible benefits and potential harms that might arise from this rule versus that rule. And based upon the criteria of best good for all and least harm for everyone, we make the call.
Because we often must act upon imperfect or limited information, it is possible for two good and honest persons to disagree as to how things will work out with a new rule. In that case we take a vote to establish a working rule. Over time we may learn more from our experience with the new rule and perhaps modify or remove it.
But the key thing is to use the best data and best estimates to OBJECTIVELY estimate the benefits and harms.
So, morality is, at least in theory, potentially objective.
LikeLike
Marvin, I’d broadly agree with you. The confusion in this sort of debate is the objective/subjective distinction.
Generally, ‘objective’ is used by theologians to mea God given morality, or by some philosophers to mean written in the cosmos in some sense; but basically as Anthony puts it defined or existing ‘independent of humans’.
At the same time, ‘subjective’ is used by those that think there is the above ‘objective’ morality to mean that subjective morality is individual subjective opinion, anything goes according to the individual’s opinion, moral relativism. This is a misrepresentation.
There is an objective+subjective version. All humans have common attributes due to a common evolution, but have individual variation. This is an objective observational fact about humans, and included within it is the observation that we have many common moral subjective opinions. Yes, the are subjective opinions, but formed by our genetics and our cultures to make them objectively observable to be similar. But not identical. There are both biological and cultural variations that do indeed results in variety in moral opinion. Even when objectively observe two people hold the moral opinion that we should not kill each other, we may also objectively observe their subjective differences about when this rule may be violated: never (pacifist), or only in defence of self or others (WWII for Britain), or to create a better world (moral crusade to enforced political and religious ideology), or for mistaken reasons and no little commercial interest (2nd war on Iraq), and I’m sure others.
Our moral dilemmas come out of the complexity and variation (even in the same human over time) of our subjective opinions. In one version of the trolley problem, should we push the fat man off the bridge? Ask an obese person who values all life. Then as a self-righteous health freak who sees obese people as a drain on health resources. They might both actually give the same answer, because culturally they know what the answer should be; but dig deeper into the emotional turmoil and I think we would objectively observe very different moral opinions influencing them .
The complexity of humans makes models of humans, like the Hierarchy of Needs, indicators of our complexity. Problems become fuzzier because of our complexity, and in many cases subjective variation complicates any objective observations we have about humans.
But what is clear is that the objectivity you and I are referring to is quite distinct from the objective morality Anthony is referring to, and his ideas about his opponents’ subjective morality are quite wrong. The morality we subscribe to is very much dependent on humans, and has both objective and subjective aspects, but not the ones Anthony is talking about.
LikeLike
I believe the theoretical distinction is simply this: (A) there is either a fixed, perfect, ideal ethical code which is absolute and unerring (objective) or (B) there is an evolving subjective ethical code which changes as we do (subjective) and may even vary from person to person.
In practice, the distinction is not all that relevant. The ideal is always beyond the grasp of the human mind. Since we cannot know the ideal, it becomes like the holy grail, something that we seek to know and something we can only get closer to, but never actually reach.
Therefore, whether the ethical system is is fixed and our understanding of it is evolving or the ethical system itself is evolving produces the same practical result. The distinction is more abstract than practical.
However, if we presume there is a “best” ethical code then we might pursue it and come closer to it in our own rules and laws, if we know the criteria to judge a better rule from a worse rule.
Theology asserts that there is a “best” ethical code, that a God knows what that code is, and is willing to spill the beans to his followers. However, there remain arguments as to what God is saying about this or that rule. And it sometimes appears that what he is saying to different people is different.
I assert that humanity may also pursue a scientifically objective and perfect ethical code, one where the correct rule to follow in a given situation may always be determined by sufficient and relevant empirical data. But we, too, being skeptical scientists, will argue as to what the data is actually telling us and point out to each other the huge gaps in our data that are being filled with our subjective assumptions.
To the degree that we share a common understanding of what is “good” for us, then science and religion may come together to agree on most if not all of what is objectively moral, whether spoken by God or whether spoken by a systems analyst. After all, as Oral Roberts used to have us sing, “For God is a Good God…”.
And Matthew 22:37-40, in my Humanist translation, says that all rules serve but two, to love Good and to love Good for your neighbor as your love it for yourself.
LikeLike
Marvin, I disagree with your assertion of some perfect moral code. There is sufficient variation within humans that there is nothing on which to ground a ‘perfect’ moral code. All we can do is concoct moral codes that appeal to us at some time. We vary over time as individuals and as cultures, and over long enough time the variation in genetics will have its input to predisposing us to some moral perspective or other. Had we not evolved empathy we might have very different moral codes, and indeed may have seen no reason to construct any codes at all. Or, without empathy, we may have constructed convenient codes of conduct that we here and now with empathy would reject as barbaric.
This is why I think morality is entirely constructed, under the influence of biology and culture, and is just as variable as many other aspects of biology and culture are across people and times.
In a broader context I find ‘perfect’ to be an unsupportable notion. Somewhat like ‘infinity’. A convenient label for an unbounded measure. But, unlike ‘infinity’, ‘perfect’ has its moral overtones of virtue – even if applied to non-moral measures.
LikeLike
The “perfect” code of ethics would be a set of rules that optimized good and minimized harm for everyone, such that no further adjustments could be made without making things worse for someone. That would be my operational definition of a “perfect” code of ethics.
But perfection is an “ideal”, not something that actually exists anywhere. We imagine perfection in order to inspire progress and improvement. And every time we assert that something is now the best it can be, something better comes along.
Morality seeks the best possible good and least possible harm for everyone. And any ethical rule is said to be “moral” or “immoral” insofar as it furthers that purpose or frustrates that purpose.
I agree with you that our ethical rules are entirely constructed by us. As a Humanist, I believe that we created God and we told him what to say. And that means that we humans are actually responsible for every judgment of the Bible that we take exception to, including its treatment of women and gays. Every judgment begins as a human judgment.
However, there is a criteria for judging the morality rules. If I may paraphrase Jesus, the two rules by which all other rules are derived and judged is to “Love good, and love good for others as you love it for yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-40)
To the degree that we can objectively know what is good for us, we can objectively know what we should and should not do.
Objectivity has the potential for universal agreement. Subjectivity, not so much.
LikeLike
Anthony: “The moral argument goes as follows: 1.If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2.At least one moral value and duty exists. 3.Therefore, God exists.”
The assumption that “if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist” is totally bogus. In fact, it is a prejudice against anyone who believes God does not exist. It implies that there is no source of morality outside of a supernatural creator.
Let’s be clear. Whether God exists or not, objective moral values and duties DO exist.
Morality seeks the best possible good and least harm for everyone. The best moral code (ethics) is therefore the set of those rules that objectively improve good or objectively reduce harm for everyone. Rules that fail to adequately serve this moral purpose (like those rules requiring that escaped slaves be returned to their owners) are objectively less moral than rules that better serve this moral purpose (like the rule outlawing slavery).
To the degree that the benefits and harms of an action can be objectively assessed, that action can be objectively determined to be “right” or “wrong”. To the degree that our information is insufficient, such that we rely upon subjective assumptions rather than objective information, the judgment is subjective.
LikeLike
1. How is saying that without God there is no objective morality, PREJUDICE? You’re going to have to qualify that.
2. What you have been describing is not objective morality. “Morality seeks the best possible good and least harm for everyone.” This is subjective.
You and Ron have almost been saying the exact same thing. You both just call it by different names.
3. You can’t have objective morality without God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anthony,
Something is objectively true if it can be demonstrated empirically in such a way that the fact is no longer a matter of subjective opinion, that is, existing in the mind alone, but a matter of objective reality, that is, existing in the real world. Science accomplishes this when it tests a hypothesis through the experimental method in such a way that the test can be replicated and the results confirmed by other scientists.
To discuss whether moral rules are objective or subjective, one must first have some idea of what morality is about.
Morality seeks the best Good, and it seeks it not only for oneself, but for everyone equally. For any given life form, what is good is that which best meets its real needs for survival and for quality of living (life and life abundant). The opposite of good is that which harms, damages, or diminishes life or the quality of life.
By the sciences of medicine, psychology, sociology, and others we can objectively know what is good and what is harmful to human life.
Once we know what is objectively good and harmful to us, we can learn through experience what rules are objectively the best at increasing our good and reducing harms.
As an Ideal, there is a perfect Good that is achieved by perfect Ethics which objectively achieves the best possible good and least harm for for everyone.
There are two ways of viewing ideals, like the perfect Good. One is to say that the ideal exists as an objective reality but which we have not yet come to know in its perfection. The other is to say that the ideal does not exist, and is imaginary, but that our current understanding is evolving in the direction of moral perfection, though it can never be reached.
Both views are functionally equivalent in their practical implications: we continue trying to improve our current good and continue trying to reduce current harms, such that things continue to get better and better.
That is what objective morality is about and how we approach it.
There are some moral judgments which we can immediately identify as objectively good. Giving a glass of water to a man dying of thirst in the desert is objectively good. Giving that same glass of water to a man drowning in a swimming pool is objectively bad. The fact that we can identify some objectively moral goods gives us hope that eventually all that is good and all that is bad and the behavior required to reach one and avoid the other may be known objectively.
When you say “You can’t have objective morality without God”, what do you mean? It appears that even with God morality is less than objective. Ethical rules vary from religion to religion. Within Christianity alone, the ethical rules of the Old Testament regarding sacrifices, circumcision, and dietary restrictions were overridden by Paul in the New Testament.
So the assertion, “You can’t have objective morality without God”, by which I presume you mean to imply that “with God you do have objective morality”, seems to be disproved by the fact that you cannot have objective morality by following the scriptures.
LikeLike
If you’d like, I’d be happy to debate you next on the foundation of objective morality. I imagine it would be slot easier than debating someone who doesn’t believe in morality. But just let me know. Seems like you’ve got a lot of ammo. If you’re interested check out the link in my next comment.
LikeLike
Not really a lot of ammo. Just a reasonable explanation of how I believe things work in the real world.
LikeLike
LikeLike