Premise two of my argument.

Well last time we observed premise one of the argument. Let's look a premise two.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

Well I think our moral experience give us enough warrant to believe this is true if you don't believe me go out and rob somebody and see what happens. But let me respond to a few challenges. Some people say because evolution is true and our morals evolved than they are not true. Well this is a good textbook example of the genetic fallacy. Which is trying to disprove a belief by how it originated. Our moral values can still be true regardless of how they came to be about. There is a stronger version of this argument which states since our moral evolved they were chosen for their survival value and not for their truth value. So we have no warrant in believing in them. Well two answer can be given. First off it is question begging to say that since they evolved we should not trust them. Why because the person giving the argument is presupposing naturalism. But if God does exist than our morals can still be correct regardless of how they came to be about. Two it is self refuting to say that since our morals evolved that we have no warrant for believing in them. Why? Because on naturalism all of our beliefs are without warrant. Including naturalism itself so therefore it literally refutes itself.

Well some people endorse moral relativism. Which is what is good for me may be bad for you. Well I don't think anyone can live with this philosophy. Why? Well moral relativist cannot condemn moral actions. For example if I rape a child and abuse it. The moral relativist cannot say that was wrong. Because what I am doing might be right to me. It happens all the time in the animal kingdom. But here is the thing that everyone who is a relativist usually support gay rights, abortion, etc. Well where does this notions of rights come from? We are just animals and animals are not moral agents. Well if we have right so should animals. It should be illegal to kill chickens. And vice versa we should arrest a animal for killing humans. But here is the thing people say well animals do have rights. Okay let's me put their reasoning.

1. Humans are animals.
2. Humans have rights.
3. Therefore animals should have rights.

Well let's see where this leads us.

1. Humans kill animals when we no longer need them or when we must eat.
2. Humans are animals.
3. Therefore we can kill humans when we no longer need them or when we must eat.

You see the problem here. I am sure animal rights don't see the logic of it. I agree animals should have rights but against abuse that is it. Some of you might look at this and say well it is not right to kill a human being. Why not? We kill animals and we are just advance primates why not kill humans? Whoever says because we shouldn't because is wrong is guilty of specism. A unjustified biase for one's own species. Well the relativist must accept all of this and stay quiet and say it is okay. But who can honestly say that!


Michael ruse one said in another context.

" For the man who says that rape is morally justified is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2= 5"

Well that is it for today. Tomorrow I will conclude my argument respond to common objections.