If objective moral values have a foundation, what would be that foundation?

There are no "objective" moral values: they vary with each society and they vary in time. But let us say you keep to widely accepted values (honoring family, avoiding killing inside your own group,no stealing etc), then you can say it is self-preservation of your society which is the foundation.

The metaethical moral argument contends that the existence of objective moral values either entails the existence of God or at least is best explained by theism (e.g. , William Lane Craig, Robert Adams). One version of the argument runs as follows: 1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.

2. There are objective moral values.3. Therefore, God exists.

infidels.org/library/modern/theism/moral... Yes, it's copied and pasted but I'm not totally sure I understand the question.

Simple answer : We were created not evolved, Belief in God and the priciples of human Life he has given us-The Bible.

Your question answers itself. If objective morals exist, that objectivity is the foundation. I think you meant to ask what would be the objective statements would actually be.

Since this is a hypothetical, one can only conjecture, but I imagine it would be something like the ten commandments, which are by no means unique to Christianity.

Generally speaking, the three major theories of ethics are utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Aristotle ethics. Utilitarians ground their ethics in happiness. What brings about the most happiness is what is considered to be right.

Often times, utilitarian philosophers go more become more specific and attach happiness to a specific value, for instance John Stuart Mills believed that to achieve happiness man must be free and only governed if there actions effect others. Kantian ethics was more of a universalists. Everyone has the same imperative to act a certain way when a certain situation arises (I oversimplified Kant).

Where Utilitarians would sacrifice the happiness of one person to bring happiness to many, Kant would say no. By doing so, you undermine human dignity. The foundation of Aristotle's moral values was in virtue.

The goal was to be a virtuous person, not to commit a single good act (again I oversimplify). These three school all have their problems, but yet seem somewhat compelling.

If by "objective" you mean ignoring God and then history would serve as the guiding foundation. It shows by example what happens to those who perpetrate certain activities that are considered unethical. Not only does it show how rich famous jerks get their comeuppance in the media, it also shows how corrupt politicians end up losing their careers and reputations, and sometimes end up in jail, or even dead.

There are even plenty of historical resources such as "Forensic Files" types of evidence showing that even when people are careful to cover up evidence of hateful crimes. Story shows that and even more, and every person can develop a set of values from this knowledge, with the concern first and foremost for ensuring their safety and prosperity in this life.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.