1. Morals to be that of the Moral Lawgiver.
2. Moral Law is a prescription and prescriptions are only from the prescribers.
3. Therefore there is an objective lawgiver.
There is an objective in Moral Law
What ought to be is the ways of the Moral from within
Unlike the Nature Law, that which is descriptive,
the moral lawgivers are how one should behave.
This is based on the way one should behave, not how one behaves
THere is Moral Law prescribed for humans not just prescribed humans.
The evidence is STRONG by in which the judgments we make.
Stating what is, the world is getting better or worse.
How do we know if there is nothing to measure this.
Opinions are mere options, there needs to be something of a fact something to prove the Moral Law.
Just stating opinion is not moral, Stating the obvious wrong doings does not adhere the Moral Law.
Just stating opinions is not a moral. Stating the obvious wrong doings does not adhere.
Such as someone was wrong in doing is an opinion
But if such as Hitler's is wrong then this is an objective and will be presented as which we are bound.
If this is the case, there is the Moral Lawgiver by which is God, again due to the objective by which we are bound
Cathy Hill Cook