Do objective moral facts exist?

Moral realism is the position that moral statements like “It is wrong to torture babies for fun” and “Rape is wrong” are statements about reality and can be true or false like “2+2=4”. Conversely, moral anti-realism states that these statements collapse back into a statement like “I prefer red ot blue.” Under moral anti-realism these statements are neither true nor false. 

In assessing whether or not moral realism or anti-realism is true I want to focus on two major points: 1) Epistemic virtue and normativity; and 2) Moral progress. As such, I contend that if my opponent denies that there are mind-independent moral facts, then he risks running into absurdities. The fact that we can make claims about what it means to reason and what it means to progress as a society only makes sense if moral realism is true. 

Epistemic virtue and normativity

For rational discourse to be even remotely possible it requires a minimum set of standards before the debate can even continue. For example, we should all agree on these principles: 1) We ought not believe falsehoods; 2) we ought not misrepresent the opposing side; 3) we ought to argue in good faith; and 4) we ought not use logical fallacies. Consider the following dialogue:

David: What do you think of my argument for evolution?

Double_R: I think it's a sound argument -- your conclusion was well-argued, and I see no problems with it.

David: So does that mean you'll reject young-earth creationism now and accept the scientific facts of evolution?

Double_R: No

David: Why not?

Double_R: Because I have no duty to embrace the truth. I reject reality and replace it with my own

This dialogue is rightfully absurd. If there are mind-independent epistemic facts and duties then why are there no moral facts and duties? Accepting one while rejecting the other, or even worse rejecting both, makes dialogue and truth finding impossible. As Michael Jones puts it: 

P1. If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.

P2: Epistemic facts do exist

C1: Moral facts do exist. 

P3: If moral facts do exist, then moral realism is true. 

C2: Moral realism is true

Moral Progress

The final piece of evidence I would like to bring up is the evidence from moral progress. If there are no mind-independent moral facts and duties, then moral progress becomes meaningless.

Almost everyone can agree that slavery is wrong and that the abolition of slavery was an improvement on society. But why should we believe this is the case? If morality were merely subjective or based on culture, then who is to say that we actually made progress as a society? Indeed, an anti-realist could easily argue that the abolition of slavery was immoral because it stole people’s property! If morality were not mind-independent, then who is to judge and who is to say whose right? 

Also consider the holocaust, one of the worst crimes against humanity ever committed. If morality were not mind-independent then, how could one objectively condemn the nazis for their actions? The nazis argued that the Jews presented a danger to Germany and they needed more “living space.” Under anti-realism how can we determine which position is correct?

If you think about the Ten Commandments, that sums it up. Naturally, as humans, it goes against our moral compass to kill, lie, steal, rape, cheat, harm others, and if you notice, you'll realize that pretty much every law in existence stems from those things

Lets start with belief in truth principle.

Someone might say "It is true that morality is subjective". However, morality also includes what one should believe in. If one has no moral obligation to believe in truth, even if subjective morality was true, no one would have obligation to believe in it, yielding conclusion that people can believe in opposite of it without any moral issue appearing. Belief in truth would be equal to belief in something false.

Debate principle

When person steps into a debate, he is already admitting certain moral rules which enable debate, such as free speech of his opponent, not attacking or beating up his debating opponent. In order to have debate in the first place, person is already assuming some moral rules are true, otherwise debate itself would be impossible.

Survival principle

Some moral values are more suitable for survival than others. So moral principles which survive the best are the ones which spread the most. On the opposite side, moral principles which are unfit for survival will perish, making them impossible to hold long term in the first place.

Self-removal principle

Self-removal principle talks of moral principle which enables its own removal at same time by contradicting justifications.

Suppose that someone says "Its okay to kill people for subjective reasons". Person has merely justified his own killing, and with it, removal of principle person holds. In simple words, principle justifies its own destruction.

Any principle based on destroying others for subjective reasons merely enables its own destruction by same justification. Thus, principle cannot survive logical trial.

Justifying something using subjective reasons is self-contradictive, because subjective reasons justify anything and thus cannot justify anything. Suppose I can use subjective reasons to conclude that I should donate to charity. But I can also use subjective reasons to conclude that I shouldnt donate to charity. Same type of reasoning produces contradictive result, making decision impossible.

Reciprocity principle

Reciprocity principle remains true irrelevant of if person believes in subjective morality or not. Suppose that person says "I have right to harm others". Others can say "We have right to harm you then". Any power which person gives to himself, anyone can give to self, so even if person believes in subjective morality, avoiding reciprocity is still impossible, because if one person can do special pleading, so can other. If one person can give himself power to harm others, others can give themselves power to harm him. Principle of equal powers states that any power an individual gives to himself in moral justifications is extended to other people, because no person holds any special power in moral decisions. If one person can decide to harm others, he is merely justifying a decision of others to harm him. If he does special pleading, he is saying special pleading is okay, so anyone can do it. If he harms others, he is saying harming others is okay, so someone can use same logic to harm him. Reciprocity principle is unavoidable irrelevant of what person believes in.

In reality I am closer to 'undecided' but that doesn't let me post an answer.

As I have explored my view on reality, religions, ethics and morality, I have come to realise that what we actually have achieved in the religion of Christianity is the most subjectively-pleasing objective system of morality possible for humans to operate by.

This is likely due to the fact God did design us to eventually, when working with Holy Spirit within us, gravitate to the Christian morality.

However, that doesn't prove it objectively true, instead you have an objectively all-powerful entity giving you the morals.

So what is true is the objective God designed us to subjectively prefer the system he wanted for us morally. Then again, that doesn't seem true for all peoples equally and interestingly only a minority of the original Jewish people converted to Christianity.

Everyone knows that at least some basic things are wrong. They may pretend not to believe in it, but you can tell they're lying.