RESOLVED: Objective Morality Exists.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Objective Morality Exists
Unless my opponent can prove that there are certain morals that everything in the universe has to follow, I will win this debate. It is simply too hard to even prove that there are objective morals on Earth, much less the Universe.
My opponent defines objective morality as two different words, not one phrase. This will cause problems for my opponent’s arguments, as just defining the words in a phrase does not necessarily mean a grasp of the concept of the literal phrase. My opponent also thinks that objective means the majority, not the whole. Nowhere in his definition does it describe this concept.
It is clear my opponent has not researched this topic in detail before starting the debate. He does not prove his burden of proof which is that “Objective Morality Exists”, instead he does not recognize that humans are not the majority of the Universe, much less the majority of the world. He believes that objective morals are morals that only apply to humans, which is false.
of real being
It is also saying that morality is encoded in our very nature.
However, this is completely false, even if it were true, humans aren’t the vast majority of the universe.
My opponent brings up murder and how it is considered immoral, yet he does not take in whole of the huge amount of murder that had been commited throughout society. Even if one person committed murder, it would not be considered an objective morality.
Unless my opponent can prove that there are certain morals that everything in the universe has to follow,
much less the Universe.
My opponent defines objective morality as two different words, not one phrase.
I would like to differ. Morality can only be judged by sentient and conscious beings above a certain level of intelligence, you wouldn't have your goldfish telling you what's right and wrong, would you? Unless you can find me an animal as smart or smarter than humans then humans are the ones who decide what is moral or not.
You seem to think objective morality here is an action, could you please elaborate?
I would like to differ. Morality can only be judged by sentient and conscious beings above a certain level of intelligence, you wouldn't have your goldfish telling you what's right and wrong, would you? Unless you can find me an animal as smart or smarter than humans then humans are the ones who decide what is moral or not.
Non-sentient stars can't have morals in the first place.
Objective Morality is the belief that every single living, sentient thing has at least one of the same morals. It is commonly found in religion, where a God creates everything to follow certain moral rules. If my opponent chooses to argue down this path, he for sure is proving my side, rather than his.
Let me use this as a chance to back up my own points that morality is ever-changing. There were no set moral rules for all of us to follow in the first place. It was our choice to create our own morals that we choose to follow. Murder was probably not seen as barbaric in older times, other morals you stated were probably not considered barbaric or not moral in nature.
This actually proves your entire argument wrong. Objective morality is saying that the goldfish has some of the same morals as everything else does, because morality is in nature.
Stars are not the only thing left in nature. It is almost certain there are other living things in the universe. That means you have to prove those things also follow the objective morals we follow.
He believes it is the major consensus of the "sentient"(meaning smart, as every single animal is sentient) beings.
- able to perceive or feel things."she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
First off, sorry for forfeiting the last round, I urge voters to give my opponent the conduct point.
This does not. I argue that objectivity in itself is the consensus of the majority, while you argue that it is rules encoded in the universe. However, this is not possible. Nature is not sentient, the "universe" is not sentient, non-sentient beings cannot have morals. Only humans can have morals, therefore making morality a question of what humans believe and not what "the universe" believes as the universe is physiologically incapable of believing.
Would you like to have a debate on if aliens exist? Other sentient beings are a completely different topic.
Murder was definitely considered barbaric in older times, in fact, I believe murder was considered barbaric in almost every era except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed.
My opponent seems to believe that humans are the only sentient beings in the universe, first: sentience doesn't matter in the concept of objective morality. Second, human's are not the only sentient animals.
Once again, my opponent says that human's can only have morals, which I completely agree with, as that is proving my point, objective morality as defined does not exist whatsoever, because other animals are not capable of following any morals, which you so thoughtfully stated.
Even so, there are other sentient beings in existence.
My point is that actions, no matter how bad it is seen by the modern human, are not encoded in nature, we are not naturally required to believe that said actions are not good.
Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow. There are certainly some arguments for objective morality to be had. Apologists for religion will define objective morality according to the commandments of their God. Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder being bad.Objective morality says that morality exists in nature, and it's how we were programmed.
Put simply, my opponents argument is that the scope of objective morality only applies to humans, which is utterly false.
In fact, my opponent proves his own argument wrong saying that not everything can have morals, because they can't perceive morals, which in my eyes is completely true, but in a stable Pro's view is utterly false.
R1:
PRO defines objective as "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" then immediately undermines their own definition by saying objective morality is infact determined based on most people's interpretation. This isn't really caught by CON, but as a voter I couldn't help but notice.
R2:
CON's response/case does a good job exploiting PRO's definition mistakes, but I feel that it could have been executed better. I'm not sure why CON included the pre-emptive refutation.. I've never been a fan of those, as they distract from the points that have actually been made. Plus, the point on "the entire universe must agree" falls a bit flat for me. Even before PRO pointed it out, I had a hard time believing morality applied to photons. I do, however, buy that PRO needs to prove some animals in nature should exhibit signs of morality. Next, CON presents an alternate definition. But while I already had my doubts about PRO's definition, without a source like the one he provided in R3 I was left with CON's word against PRO's... That isn't a good place for the voter to be. CON should have sourced immediately. I like CON's "Evolving morality" argument.. But I feel it was wasted potential. At this point, PRO has already admitted that morality is based on consensus. Ergo, PRO has already helped CON make his point since human opinion is fickle and changes over time (as can be evidenced by the place of women in society for example). This fact was not exploited, and later on in the debate PRO outright says early humans would have had radically different senses of morality. All CON would have had to say is "they have consciousness, does their moral sense not count or something?"
PRO's response digs him a bit deeper here, only addressing some surface level issues CON brings up while not digging into the meatier part of the case I covered above. The only response that I bought was one against CON's "everything in the universe" point: "Non-sentient stars can't have morals in the first place."
Again, I'm not sure why CON isn't just pushing his "changing morality" point with PRO's definitions at the helm, or at least pushing a nature point.
R3:
CON puts the nail in the coffin on PRO's definitions, and this point is dropped by PRO from this round forward. CON brings up the point that nature must exhibit signs of morality. I think CON should have led with this instead of the whole "entire universe" thing.
"It is almost certain there are other living things in the universe. " CON asserts this without evidence, so as a voter I'm not taking it very seriously.
PRO forfeit loses him conduct paired with a subsequent display of good conduct from CON.
R4 onwards: pretty much rehashes of previous rounds.
VERDICT: Most points were neck and neck except the critical point of the definition of objective morality. Here CON stomped on PRO, and this weakened PRO's case substantially for me. With CON doubling down on the definition throughout the debate it was what ultimately swayed me in favor of CON.
Advice to PRO: if you want to win this resolution lose the consensus point. Arguing objective morality has to be done from a very specific angle to avoid outcomes like this.
Pro must prove that the majority of people are objectively moral (as he claims) when it comes to a conclusion, but he did not do that. Con solidly interjected with "our morals are always evolving, there are no moral rules that everyone follows and believes that are immoral". The debate trailed on into whether morality only applies to humans, and though pro stood by his points, con argued that our beliefs contradict and change over time, and hence cannot be objectively moral. Pro conceded this point, which results in his loss in the end.
much better
Np. Actually, I was working on the vote before you asked me to vote LOL
Thanks for the good advice, I'll try to improve my case later.
Can someone please vote? (Never mind MisterChris, you can vote.)
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action: Did not justify awarding arguments points to standard.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The voter's only argument justification was "pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral." This justification misses the mark of all 3 standards.
Furthermore, the voter has injected their own argumentation into their vote. This is bad voter conduct for obvious reasons.
pro stabs himself in the foot with " except maybe the neolithic era as the brains weren't fully developed..." thus conceding that humans minds change over time and contradict what is objectively moral or not moral. He could've tried being even more resolute that each time has different objective morals (similar to how rock wear and tear can change over time, yet still be objective) and how because morality involved human actions, human should decide what to do in the end.
Vote
Humans are not the only sentient beings in the universe, I have a source saying this. The thing about this debate is that Water can't accept what objective morality is and it is impossible to prove. Objective morality is not only directed to humans, Water can't decide this based on what animals can't interpret morals. The only thing that we were debating about was the definition, and multiple sources prove Water wrong about what he thinks is objective morality, even my source says:
"In the end, humans are one species. While many religions believe that we are the only intelligent species, and that our creator was focused on us and our actions, someone who is more secular may point to the fact that there may be other intelligent life out there. What we believe to be objectively true may not be in some other galaxy, if you believe there is intelligent life out there.
Even without the aliens, animals have different morals as well. Some animals eat their own as a part of their life cycle. Almost all of us are disgusted over the idea of cannibalism. This is a moral inconsistency found on this earth."
You'll have to swing hard if you want to make up the ground final round.
bump
Wasn't planning to. BTW,I know how to be objective when it becomes time to vote thanks to my PFD experience, so don't worry about that.
If you guys feel so strongly about this topic, I plead you not to vote on this debate.
OH SHIT
i was doing a lotta stuff for school, completely forgot this debate existed...
Nooooooo
CS Lewis has defended against most refutations of P2 persuasively. Anyway, the point I am making is that arguments abound for both PRO and CON.
I've seen the game Socrates Jones: Pro philosopher easily dispel this idea. P2 has serious problems, "ask for back up" would completely destroy it.
Intuition.
P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.
P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously.
C1: Morality is objective.
how the hell can pro win this?
Don't get your comment. The update is relatively new.
you'd be surprised how little i actually debate on debateart. the fact that it shows my 65% winrate is depressing too...
Oh wait I messed up
As if you visited only the forums for the past month -_-
woah, the new debate thing is so slick