Morality
is a central foundation of human behaviour; it governs how we
interact with others and how we conduct ourselves. Morality is the
reason why people are appalled by acts such as murder and terrorism.
An amoral world would therefore be an objectively miserable place for
many of its inhabitants, since its inhabitants would be victimized by
others who do not follow moral codes.
Whether morality is objective, however, is controversial. While it
is objectively true that suffering is unpleasant for the victim, many
believe that there is no objective reason to say that the fact that
an act generates suffering means that the act must be wrong. Here, my
opponent advances the argument that morality is not just subjective,
but also a form of superstition. This viewpoint is fundamentally
flawed.
Definitions:
Since side proposition has not provided definitions, I will
provide a few reasonable dictionary definitions.
First, let’s define
superstition. Wiktionary’s definition of superstition is “A belief or beliefs, not
based on human reason or scientific knowledge, that events may be
influenced by one's behaviour in some magical or mystical way.” (“Superstition”
2018)I
believe that both sides would agree that this
is not a
reasonable definition, since proposition
clearly means unreasonable belief in general, even if it does not
directly involve magic.
So let’s instead use Merriam-Webster’s
“a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the
unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of
causation.”(“Definition
of Superstition,” n.d.)
Secondly, let’s define morality. Wiktionary defines morality as “Recognition of the distinction between good
and evil or between right and wrong; respect for and obedience to the
rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or characteristic of
behaving in a manner intended to produce morally good
results.”(“Morality”
2018) I believe that this is a reasonable
definition. It is important to note that under this definition,
somebody whose behaviour is affected by his moral beliefs but does
not hold his own moral beliefs to be objectively sound still believes
in a form of morality; it’s just subjective rather than objective
morality.
Finally, it is important to distinguish moral realism, moral
antirealism, moral absolutism, and moral relativism.
Moral realism means morals exist.
Moral absolutism means morals exist and are universal.
Moral relativism means that morals exist but depend on
circumstances and culture.
Moral antirealism means morals do not exist.(Metaethics:
Crash Course Philosophy #32,
n.d.)
1. Subjectivity does not equal superstition.
Proposition’s argument requires morality to be subjective: if
morality is objective and can be proven using reasoning or evidence,
then it would be rational to believe in morality. Thus, the
acceptance of morality would not be a superstition. Thus, let us
assume for the sake of argument that morality is subjective.
What would make something subjective a superstition? Clearly not
all subjective ideas are superstitions. Having a favourite colour,
for example, is not a superstition. This is because the person who
has a favourite colour recognizes that his preference is subjective
in nature—the person is not making a strong factual claim and
therefore does not need strong, objective evidence. Similarly, if a
person holds to moral standards while also recognizing that morality
is subjective, the person is not superstitious. Such a person would
simply be acting out his own personal preferences. Because such a
person is not making a claim about objective fact, he is not
superstitious since his personal preferences do not require factual
justification. So if morality is subjective, morality can exist as a
personal preference that is not superstition.
2. Not all false beliefs are superstitions
If morality is subjective and I believe that my moral beliefs are
objective, then I am wrong. However, not all false beliefs are
superstitions. For example, Newtonian mechanics have been shown to be
flawed and have been replaced by relativity and quantum physics, but
this does not mean the idea of Newtonian mechanics is superstition.
Instead, it was a reasonable conclusion given the evidence available
at the time.
Evidence available now suggests that morality may exist. Human
moral intuitions begin from birth. (Van de Vondervoort and Kiley
Hamlin 2016) This is not conclusive proof of morality, but it is
evidence of it. So if people are wrong in believing morality to be
objective, they are simply wrong, not superstitious: their belief in
morality is founded upon reasonable extrapolations from what they
know.
3. Axioms are a sufficient foundation for an area of knowledge
To create a consistent moral system, a foundation must be set. A
religious person could believe that God exists and has commanded
certain moral laws to exist or has given humanity knowledge of the
moral laws that exist naturally without divine intervention. An
atheist could, similarly, accept as axiomatic certain universal moral
beliefs: the golden rule, avoiding harm to others, et cetera. In both
cases, certain moral laws are accepted as axiomatically true because
they seem self-evident: people have an instinctive aversion to
actions such as murder and theft.
The use of axioms is not superstitious. Mathematics and logic have
axioms that cannot be proven objectively but are instead based on
human intuition. For example, we cannot prove the law of identity,
that A always equals A, without circular reasoning: logic is required
to prove ideas, and the law of identity is the basis of logic. Yet
this does not mean that accepting the law of identity is
superstitious, for the law of identity makes intuitive sense.
Similarly, morality is intuitive. Infants, for example, will react
negatively to actions that adults would perceive as unjust and react
positively to actions that adults would perceive as just, so morality
is not just a social construct but also a form of intuition.(Van de
Vondervoort and Kiley Hamlin 2016) Morality is also universal: people
agree, for example, that murder is bad. While some cultures have
condoned murder in the form of terrorism and inquisitions, this is
not proof of moral subjectivism. In such cultures, religions,
philosophies, and traditions are used to justify and rationalize for
immorality because human intuition goes against brutality, and
religious or intellectual authority must therefore be invoked to
provide assurance that such acts are morally sound and just. And even
if morality does vary from culture to culture, it does not need to be
absolute in order to be real and objective. Moral relativism and
moral realism are not mutually exclusive: maybe morality is real, but
the right thing to do varies from situation to situation. Thus, human
intuition heavily points towards morality. If intuition is sufficient
to establish mathematics as an area of inquiry, then it can also
provide support for moral axioms, thereby making morality or ethics a
legitimate area of inquiry.
4. Imperfection and disagreements are not valid reasons to
reject an entire area of inquiry
No discipline or area of inquiry is perfect. Science, for example,
is an iterative process founded upon falsification, and inevitably,
some scientific theories will be rejected as they are falsified. Side
opposition recognizes that current beliefs about morality may be
flawed. Side opposition is not obliged to affirm any specific moral
system, secular or religious, nor is side opposition obliged to prove
that current moral systems are absolutely correct. All side
opposition needs to do is prove that the idea of morality in general
is valid enough to not be a superstition. Here, side opposition has
shown that morality has a valid basis: human intuition.
5. Rebuttal
Proposition argument: Ideas
of what is morally "good" vary across cultures and none of
it can be objective given that morality is something that requires
culture, and the inter-subjective values of that culture to exist.
It is important to distinguish
between moral realism and moral objectivism. One can be a moral
realist while also accepting that relative to different cultures and
contexts, the right thing to do may be different. So
even if morality does vary across cultures, it does not mean morality
is fake or a superstition.
Secondly, it could very well be true
that some cultures simply got morality wrong. Disagreement is not even evidence
that morality isn’t absolute, much less
evidence that it isn’t real. For example, evolutionary
biologists disagree over whether evolution occurs gradually or in
bursts (punctuated equilibrium), but that is hardly evidence enough
to discount the whole of evolution.
Proposition argument: Without
the influence of other subjective humans you wouldn't even know that
such a concept as morality exists.
Available scientific literature
suggests that infants have some moral intuitions. (Van
de Vondervoort and Kiley Hamlin 2016)
Overall,
proposition has made many assertions without evidence, and has jumped
from “morality isn’t real” to “morality
is superstition”. Since not
all false beliefs are superstition, and some false beliefs are a
product of limited evidence rather than ignorance, proposition has not met their burden even if all of their arguments still stand.
Van de Vondervoort, Julia, and J. Kiley Hamlin. 2016. “Evidence
for Intuitive Morality: Preverbal Infants Make Sociomoral
Evaluations.” Child Development Perspectives 10 (3):
143–48.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Semi full-forfeit. I also liked the sylweb adheres (perhaps got inspired by me and is a secret admirer) of the prop vs opp dynamic and ignore the 'pro vs con' because being the instigator or contender is not actually indicative of the dynamics in a resolution like this (where side 'con' isn't representing a positive, but a negative whereby Prop has full BoP).
Pro got disputed by Con who explained that what Pro is saying is that morality is an irrational belief at worst and incomplete theory at best, neither of which are inherently 'superstition',
Con adds types of morality and elements to it (realism, absolutism) and explains how not one of them is actually superstition but rather than superstition may come in regarding how the morality is punished or whatever but not directly into the moral code.
Pro never once explains (AND FORFEITS SO HE COULDN'T REPLY) how a superstition is inherently what an irrational belief is.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate meets the definition of a full forfeit debate. It is therefore not moderatable so long as the voter does not vote for the forfeiting side. Insofar as the voter does not vote for the forfeiting side, no moderator action is appropriate.
************************************************************************