============================================
2. The Existence of Objective Moral Standards
Relativism leads to absurd conclusions which undermine its credibility. For example, moral relativism impedes our ability to think critically and rationally about moral and ethical issues.
If there is no absolute moral law then there is no basis for making moral judgments or decisions. Would we say that Mother Teresa is no more or less virtuous than Adolf Hitler? If there is no absolute moral standard, how can we call Hitler and the Nazi atrocities absolutely wrong? Is genocide relatively wrong or absolutely wrong?
Pure moral relativism has always been an easily refuted and fallible philosophy. Moral relativity in its purest form would virtually condone all behavior no matter how many rights are violated or the resulting consequences. It continues to thrive because it’s the easy way out. If man is the measure of all things, including morality, then he has no one to whom he is accountable and he can do whatever he likes. The philosophy of moral relativism is simply modern man’s meager attempt to justify his immoral behavior.
But if this is God's world, a personal universe, then we do have reason to believe in absolute moral principles. For one thing, as Immanuel Kant pointed out, we need an omnipotent God to enforce moral standards, to make sure that everyone is properly rewarded and punished. Moral standards without moral sanctions don't mean much. More important, we should consider the very nature of moral obligation. We cannot be obligated to atoms, or gravity, or evolution, or time, or chance; we can be obligated only to persons.
The belief in the existence of an objective morality must imply the existence of God because someone higher than us must have supplied this universal standard. If a person cannot acknowledge the existence of a higher universal standard, then he cannot actually have objective morality. His reference point cannot really be any more valid than that of Hitler or Stalin and he cannot appeal to a higher or better standard to argue otherwise.
In the end, anybody supposing the existence of objective morality must mentally acknowledge the existence of God's standard, if not God himself.
====================================
Sure, if somebody admits the existence objective morality, then yeah, I think it's just one step away from admiting God.
But trying to argue for objective morality is a totally different beast.
Indeed, your arguments are nowhere close to convincing to me. In fact, to me, "absolute" morality is just a cop-out, almost naive. It's way too 19th century.
the Wii is an epidemic.
