Instigator / Con
21
1538
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Topic

Is Objective Morality real?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
3
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
1

With 3 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Pro
13
1473
rating
100
debates
32.0%
won
Description
~ 3,172 / 5,000

Morality - most topically defined by Merriam Webster as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct"
Objective - the best summation by Merriam Webster I found would be " having reality independent of the mind"

Putting them together would be an inept phrasing of the term, as Objective is more of an adjective to Morality than any sort of partner. That would mean we are describing a "morality" as objective. Or- a Moral system true independent from the mind.

Don't worry this won't be nearly as mellow dramatic as my short description. I am certainly fairly young to be asking such a "deep" question, but it does plague my mind heavily. Can we even demonstrate an objective morality?

In order for there to be objective morality, there would have to be some objective standard that we would get it from. On top of that, the framework would have to logically lead to the moral rules you or any other person might offer.

God is certainly an often-cited standard to appeal too. I don't quite buy the excuse. I hear fellow atheists claim, "But the universe has objective rules, and we can therefore make objective moral standards of these objective statements." They claim this without even a hint of the skepticism that most commonly breeds this sort of atheist.

It is a non-sequitur to jump from: there are objective laws in the universe to killing is bad. Yes, it is true that killing (as far as anyone can demonstrate, in a circular fashion yes but demonstrate nonetheless) will objectively harm a person, but where does that lead you to it being a bad thing to harm humans?

It is true that the harm exists, but does that matter? Given the framework of the questioner, it seems that humans have no bearing on the universe at large, in fact; it might seem that humans existing might be bad from that framework, as they do more harm to the universe. But in reality, there is no way to objectively demonstrate which values that exist are "good" and which are "bad".

Some simple terms:

Theweakeredge is a fairly simple name, but I will accept reasonably shorthands such as Con, Edge, etc..
I will refer to the Pro as such until they provide a preferred shorthand.
While I would like to keep the debate structured, don't get too hung up on it, and if it causes any harm to your argument, simply ignore it.
I will not be arguing as if the Pro has the BoP (Burden of Proof for those not aware: which is summarized as the position which requires evidence or proof in order to rationally convince their interlocutor) but instead responding to arguments and rebuttals made by both sides.
"Winning" in this context would be to demonstrate that Objective Morality exists for pro, and "Winning" for con would be the opposite.
A forfeit will be treated as an automatic loss unless a reasonable explanation is provided
I do expect some manners on both sides, but don't be too uptight. As serious as the topic may be the purpose of debate is to improve and explore new and old concepts.

Again I will be in the position of Con, as in, I do not believe it true that objective morality exists.

I give round one to my opponent to present their case, and good luck to you as well.

Round 1
Con
As I said I would in the description- the first round is my opponents -please do demonstrate objective morality. 

I look forward to your argument.
Pro
It is entirely plausible to demonstrate which values are objectively good and objectively bad. The answer is simple: Every value is meaningless. Every action is immoral. There is no difference between killing and saving someone. Why? The universe is 13.8 billion years old. This is scientifically justified from the life cycle of stars and the expansion of the universe. But humans have only been around for 200,000 years, and local to earth, which is extremely small compared to the observable billions of light years of the universe. That means any thing we do is just a blimp that is near impossible to observe on a entire scale of the universe. Con has admitted, "it seems that humans have no bearing on the universe at large".

Therefore, no matter what you argue from, morality is objectively bad, because its impact on the universe is none. Consider if a speck of dust moved 1 inch to the right. Is this moral? No. It just is. It's meaningless and it accomplishes nothing. Con said it himself, you can't justify human value. Why do humans matter so much? They're just one part of the universe. Just because we have some form of intelligence does not give us ability to determine what is right and what is wrong. You cannot know if enjoying something is "right". Compared to the entire impact on the universe itself, our actions are miniscule. As stars fade away within billions of years, black holes would be the only thing left in the universe. Morality would not matter at that point. As you can see, any action we take is morally neglectable, and thus objectively bad. If we would all either die or become black holes at the end of the universe, how could you say morality is subjective at all? It wouldn't matter what we thought. No matter what humans think, they cannot change this bleak future. Clearly, morality is objective.
Round 2
Con
Introductory - Opening Statment

Thank you for your acceptance of the debate. I look forward to a productive debate. 

For starters, you've brought up no objections with my definitions and we can therefore move on with the understanding of both terms as outlined in the description of the debate. My opponent has disregarded structure in favor of simple deductive arguments. I will break this into several sections. Claims: where I will evaluate each claim pro has made, and rebuttals: where I will post my rebuttals to each of the conclusions drawn, and definitions: where I will relevant terms and the thus far accepted definitions.

Definitions
  • Morality - most topically defined by Merriam Webster as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct
  • Objective - having reality independent of the mind
  • Objective Morality - A moral system true independent from the mind

Let's get started shall we:



Claims



It is entirely plausible to demonstrate which values are objectively good and objectively bad.
This is the initial claim made by the pro and will be the effective standard I hold him too for this round. By this, they imply the will demonstrate the plausibility of objective morality. (Defined in definitions)


Every value is meaningless. Every action is immoral. There is no difference between killing and saving someone
The claim being made here is both that values hold no inherent meaning, and that every action made is immoral. Then they imply but do not claim that there is no practical difference between right and wrong. 



The next couple of claims made in the paragraph will be reserved for my rebuttal section and do not need further clarification, onto the second paragraph.




Therefore, no matter what you argue from, morality is objectively bad, because its impact on the universe is none. 
This claim is that any action made is immoral due to its lack of disturbance in the universe. This implies that the effect on the universe is the objective standard used for morality in this particular framework


As you can see, any action we take is morally neglectable, and thus objectively bad.
The interesting claim made here is that: If an action is neglectable, then it is bad. Interesting base claim there, it essentially means what we would usually consider neutral claims are actually wrong. 


It wouldn't matter what we thought. No matter what humans think, they cannot change this bleak future. Clearly, morality is objective.
The claim is that because we can not change the future in any meaningful way, morality is objective



The distinct impression I've gained from these claims, in general, is that the pro believes that any action unaffecting the universe is immoral. I've left out any sourced claim, as they are all true as far as I can tell. Now let's move to the rebuttals.




Rebuttals


  1. Value - " something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable"  Immoral - "not moral" or "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles"  Moral - "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"
1a. The pro has made a fundamental error here- they claim, "Every value is meaningless. Every action is immoral" yet if all values were meaningless, principles, then there would be no ground for immoral actions. Or actions that are "not moral" This contradiction would completely ruin this first paragraph as it is all based on this principle.  


   2.  The central claim of the second paragraph and conclusion of the first is, "morality is objectively bad because its impact on the universe is none. " This implies that the moral framework is based on the objectivity of the universe. Why? Yes, the universe is objective as far as either of us can tell, but why is the effect on the universe the standard being used here? Not to mention the second use of that blatant contradiction. 

2a. For example, I could just as easily claim that because we don't affect the solar system largely morality has no meaning, or use the Earth and say there is morality but human action falls on the bad side of it. My point is that the standard being used here is completely arbitrary. My opponent unjustifiably used the biggest objective thing he could think of as the framework but provides no reasoning. 

2b. For a quick TLDR: You claim subjective morality is not true due to the fact that no action we have has any effect on the universe without ever justifying why the universe is the objective standard. It is only, for the purposes of this debate, in your mind that the universe or lack of effect on it matters in regards to morality. 




Constructive

  • My opponent has so far failed to provide any objective standards to use a framework for objective morality, which would be the foundation for objective morality. While this doesn't go as far as proving that objective morality isn't real, it does go to show the point's plausibility. 
  • Numbers, math, objects, etc are just labels used by humans for practicality. Values and other concepts, such as the meaningless of a thing, are completely fabricated by humanity and as such, any system with it would have to logically be subjective as these concepts are only existent inside of minds.

P1: Objective Morality is defined as a moral system true independent of a mind
P2: Values and principals are made by minds
P3: Objective Morality has Values, Principals, etc..
Con: Therefore, these systems would be made by a mind
  • This would lead you to conclude them not objective. It's a contradictory statement to say that objective morality is made up of concepts only existent in minds. 


Conclusions


If we were to argue with BoP intact, my opponent would not have fulfilled it, and their arguments would actually help further my case. As they made a contradicting statement that would seem to validate my position. My opponent has appealed to an unjustified axiom in order to try to further their point and this only furthers the downfall of the argument. 

Due to the lack of existing valid proofs, and the terms used here. Objective morality would not seem to exist. Thank you for your time and effort, I look forward to seeing your next argument.

And remember Vote Con!

Pro
Very good counter, excellent points against my argument. I will now point out why my original argument's flaws allow me to pave the path towards my real argument.

It is true that the universe is extremely ambiguous and ridiculously big for a standard. After all, we humans are the only intelligent species we know thus far that can actually execute these things. Unless we find aliens or gods that can dictate a higher level of intelligence or understanding than us, we only have ourselves to depend on. That is why our morality can be judged based upon our own judgement and standards. Without any standard of morality, our world would collapse into chaos and absurdity, and even nihilism would contradict itself (as even believing in nihilism would be meaningless), and hence there must be some standard. The reasoning behind this is that there is nothing above us that is able to decide for ourselves something that we do is right or wrong. Consider the evolution perspective, we have essential needs for food, sex, drink, and sleep (sometimes shelter). At the very minimal, these must be valued as "moral", because if we consider them the wrong thing to do, we would all go extinct and prevent the continuation of our species, which is what is embedded naturally into our evolutionary mind. 

This new system may seem like it is defeated by the first, however, con has noted there is no grounds for the very first one. As our lives continue onwards, we can only take into account the near future (as there is no way to predict our true impact billions of years into the future). It may seem that the bleak future ends all of our efforts regardless of what we do, but due to the natural trait of survival, we have grown to appreciate the small parts of life and help our species go as far as we possibly can in the present. Now isn't that far more optimistic than the original point?

Conclusion: It is nearly impossible to go against our hard-wired nature to survive. It has allowed the world to be the way it is. As we cannot change the past (unless con can prove time travel into the past is possible), it seems reasonable that we must accept it as it is. Even other animals and cave men in the past have done these things. Unless con can prove these four actions necessary for survival are immoral, he loses the debate. Just as you shouldn't regret your mistakes (it has already gone by), but rather build upon them and improve your actions, objective morality based on evolutionary traits seems as powerful and as good as any style of subjective morality.
Round 3
Con
Opening Statement - CR1

I'd like to once again thank my opponent for their quick response, and apologize for my late one. Some house keeping: My opponent has still not objected to my definitions, even after I specifically brought attention to them. I'll take this as an acceptance of all terms I have provided. I'd also like to point out that my opponent has practically conceded the first round, though this may not be entirely the case, it seems we both agree it is inherently flawed. Once more my opponent has favored argument instead of structure, so I will keep my argument structured the same to reflect that. Now that all of that is out of the way, onto the definitions. 



Definitions 
  • Morality - most topically defined by Merriam Webster as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct
  • Objective - having reality independent of the mind
  • Objective Morality - A moral system true independent from the mind
  • Chaos - a state of utter confusion
  • Topical - of, relating to, or arranged by topics
  • Subjective - characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
  • Absurd - having no rational or orderly relationship to human life
[Note I: All definitions provided are taken from Merriam-Webster.com, and the most topical definitions are provided for this definitions section.]



I have added onto the definitions as new words are introduced for the purpose of clarity, if you have any objections I'd ask you bring them up in a rebuttal in your next round. Now onto the claims section.



Claims 




Very good counter, excellent points against my argument. I will now point out why my original argument's flaws allow me to pave the path towards my real argument.
As explained in the opening statement, Pro has practically conceded his first round argument, this is my evidence of such. 


That is why our morality can be judged based upon our own judgement and standards. 
We fundamentally agree on this claim, but it doesn't tell anyone how you can justify that morality as objective. 


Without any standard of morality, our world would collapse into chaos and absurdity, and even nihilism would contradict itself (as even believing in nihilism would be meaningless), and hence there must be some standard. 
This claims seems to imply that, if our world was without morality, it would be absurd and chaotic.


The reasoning behind this is that there is nothing above us that is able to decide for ourselves something that we do is right or wrong. 
If I were more semantic a debater, I'd point out that you haven't justified this position, but seeing as we both agree. This claim is simply an interesting insight into your justifications for objectivity.  


t the very minimal, these must be valued as "moral", because if we consider them the wrong thing to do, we would all go extinct and prevent the continuation of our species, which is what is embedded naturally into our evolutionary mind. 
The claim here is that because the aforementioned necessities for life must be moral due to them being, necessary. This ignores my definitions, but I'll address it further in depth in the rebuttals section.  





The claims made prior to the ones I point out here are things reliably sourced, things we completely agree on, or semantic claims that I only disagree with... semantically. Now I'll address your second paragraph is what I would say, but none of your claims are particularly interesting. Instead, I will move onto your conclusion. 





 It is nearly impossible to go against our hard-wired nature to survive. 
Another claim for my rebuttals, but I would like to note it here either way. I think the implications are fairly obvious, Pro believes that the probability of someone going against their evolutionary instinct to survive very very low. 


Unless con can prove these four actions necessary for survival are immoral, he loses the debate. 
This claim assumes the Con, myself, has to specifically prove anything "moral" or "immoral" 


objective morality based on evolutionary traits seems as powerful and as good as any style of subjective morality.
This is the standard I'm holding your argument too, this is your end goal. I reread your argument several time's to see if your argument accomplished this, and I don't think it did. 



Overall your claims gave me the impression that you think because something is necessary to survive it is necessarily moral. That things that aren't productive towards surviving would be "immoral". 




Rebuttals




  1. In your fist (argumentative) paragraph, you claim that something which dictates our survival, is necessarily moral. This claim is also noted in my Claims section for further elaboration. You have not proven Evolution objective. The definition of objective I have provided does not fit with your claim here. Again I must ask, why does our survival matter independent of humans? This is an even more subjective standard than your first claim. Why does the the well-being of humans matter objectively? Independent of humans, our survival wouldn't matter. 
1a. While it is true that we would have to live in order to be typing this debate, the fact of the matter, is that our survivals do not matter independent from our minds. This is a non-sequtiur. Knowing that something is necessary to survival does not logically lead to it being "moral" as there is no defined standard which would work. Seeing as your standard decidedly subjective, this applies to your argument as well.

   2.Apart of your claim is that, without morality our world would descend into chaos and absurdity. I have defined both above, and forgive me, but our world          already seems to be in a state of utter confusion. A global pandemic that millions don't believe exist, fundamental human right violations left in right in one of        the "leading" countries in the world? I wouldn't consider that world orderly

2a. Your entire second paragraph is simply an adjective to the first. The only new thing is seems to point out is that this new perspective is more positive in demeanor. While this is true, it does not affect the debate's result one way or another. This argument isn't a real argument as much as it is something which emphasizes your other argument with half-claims ans such.

   3. You claim that it is nearly impossible to against your hard-wired nature to survive, yet, in 2018 nearly 50,000 people killed them self, and is actually the 10th leading cause of death in the US for that year. That does not seem improbable at all, in fact, it seems quite common in the US. This alone would disprove your point, but on top of this millions of people ignore safety guidelines in order to "keep their rights." Both points together utterly demolish the notion that we can't go against survival instincts. 

3a. Furthermore my opponent makes the claim that unless I can prove these necessities immoral, I lose the debate, not only is this untrue. As I have specifically pointed out that my goal is to demonstrate that objective morality doesn't exist, this win condition isn't valid whatsoever. But you have made a claim here, and do possess the BoP for this particular claim. I don't have to prove it immoral as I have never stated it. You have made the claim that it is moral and therefore have to prove it.

3b. (Tied with the claim to 3a.) Even if Pro was right and I had to prove this myself, and I needed this to "win" this would be a non-sequitur. How does need for life translate to a moral action? I've already asked this question, and it remains unanswered here. It doesn't follow that human's well-being (death or life) determine moral action. There is no proper justification for that framework.




Constructive



  • Extend: 
1. No valid standard for objective morality

2. Referenced syllogism that leads concludes there is no objective morality

  • Here is a syllogism that established subjective morality, as I have thoroughly deconstructed objective morality thus far in this debate.
P1: Subjective is defined as: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
P2: Value, principals, standards, etc.. are generated by perception and mind
P3: Morality: A system of morals
P4: (Extension 2) Previous Syllogism 
Conclusion: Subjective morality is existent, while Objective morality is not

In reality this is nothing more than the logical conclusion from my last syllogism. In reality, the dichotomy would mean that if objective morality didn't exist, then subjective morality would. 

  • You have repeatedly said in your argument that the fact of evolutionary instincts instill a kind of objective morality, and I have debunked this claim in my rebuttals. To use your own logic, then pigs well-being would be were we get objective morality. I mean- they were evolution instilled with the instinct to survive. Obviously this isn't the case, but using the Pro's logic, this is the kind of conclusions you could draw.


Conclusions



My opponent has conceded his last argument in the favor of this new ones, and it essentially boils down to using evolution as the new standard. This doesn't work as it takes humans to prioritize human well-being over- say the earths, pigs, insects, etc... The pro has failed to justify this new standard as objective and this ruins his entire argument. 

I am not convinced of my opponents argument's quite obviously, but I implore the voters to take a look at his argument, question the links, and notice his lack of proof for the leaps Pro makes in logic. Thank you for your time, vote con









Pro
The essential reasoning for why con must prove that survival is immoral, is because it is the status quo. It is obvious and apparent to us that humans and many other animals are still alive. Morality concerns what is the right thing to do, and so we can think about survival and whether or not it is truly moral (i.e., to be or not to be, that is the question). Con makes an excellent point that people kill themselves regularly and that they value "rights" over their own survival. Therefore then, I will make another argument, that they are considering about the future of the survival of the species. This is the reasoning behind why human suffering could come into the equation. However, I will still argue that even if humans eventually evolve to all kill themselves, this is yet now the new standard for what is moral. Just like an objective mathematical function can change over time, humans can reveal more and more about their current moral standards and understanding. The objective morality is not necessarily set in stone and can be based on current patterns of evolution and what is easier to do based on circumstance, if life is too harsh and death is superior, and if the future of humanity is at such stake that humans need certain "rights" to entrust within themselves.

Is it truly impossible that morality can be both subjective, and objective? Let us think about this for a moment. I can envision F(x) = 1 in my head, the graph, the subjective idea of what it should look like. There is also the objective computer simulated notion where F(x) = 1 as a function. It is entirely possible that my imagination, my "belief" is precisely what the mathematical objective F(x) = 1 is. As such, even though my idea of F(X) = 1 can depend on my mind, if I have a sound imagination and interact with math on a regular basis, I can reproduce the objective F(x) = 1 using a simple ruler and paper.

Similarly, it may seem that our morals are formed from our regular opinions, that our killing of ourselves or killing of others is entirely due to our own thought process. But what if this was indeed the precise fitting of the F(x) = 1? Consider this, what if we could graph everyone's morality spectrum as a function? F(kill) = 1 if you think killing is immoral. F(torture) = 0 if you think torture is moral. Eventually, eventually, we could come up with a majority consensus based on past patterns and instinct of how the universe functions. Remember that, over countless experiments, we have concluded that F=MA, where force equals mass times acceleration, ignoring magnetic, friction, heat, electricity forces, so on and so forth. There are certain exceptions and outliers, but generally speaking, in a vacuum, F=MA. Though our moral equation is not this simple, it's hard for Con to prove otherwise. Based on the current evolution spectrum, F(Survive) = 0 [surviving is moral], while F(Survive)- F(Suffering) = 1 by the consensus of those that could not take the power of life any more. And those that do choose to life? Perhaps the equation in full is F(Survive)-F(suffering)+ F(enjoyment) = 0. As you can see, each action we take can potentially be plugged into a function where we can derive the objective value based on previous patterns. There may be certain outliers (like science, which is objective, but has certain exceptions), that influence our objective morality system. We just haven't discovered them yet.

Conclusion: In order to disprove this, con must disprove that the status quo and past patterns, used to help conclude scientific principles, cannot be applied to morality. Just as F=MA, our brains have originally tried to survive. Additional variables and influences have affected people and added new ideas to these moral functions, so we can justify suicide and sacrifices. Consider if I added "energy" to the left hand side of F=MA, it would completely change this objective scientific principle and look "subjective", despite not being so. We have established powerful standards to give evidence of the Big Bang, of Man's Evolution itself. Can con disprove that the moral function is not merely just another mathematical function, if only with thousands if not millions of variables affecting it?


Round 4
Con
Opening Statement - CR2

Once more I'd like to thank my opponent for his response, I'll get this section out of the way quickly. Your last argument was particularly interesting due to its lack of interest in 90% of my rebuttals and almost all of my constructive. I"ll dive deeper into this in my rebuttals/counter rebuttals, but the voter may notice that Pro has moved the goalposts of this debate multiple times. That being said, I will not put any less effort into this response because of that, contrary to what my comment may imply, I will address the arguments regardless if they are a fallacy or not. My reasoning? While fallacies will discredit an argument from being true, it is technically possible to commit a fallacy and still be right. All of that done with, I'll move onto the definitions. 


Definitions
Morality - most topically defined by Merriam Webster as "a doctrine or system of moral conduct
  • Objective - having reality independent of the mind
  • Objective Morality - A moral system true independent from the mind
  • Topical - of, relating to, or arranged by topics
  • Subjective - characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
  • Status Quo - he existing state of affairs
[Note I: All definitions provided are taken from Merriam-Webster.com, and the most topical definitions are provided for this definitions section.]
[Note II: I have deleted and added definitions based on their relevance to the debate]



Claims



The essential reasoning for why con must prove that survival is immoral, is because it is the status quo
The Pro's claim is that MY burden is to demonstrate survival is immoral due to the status quo, considering the standard I've set, this is a huge move of the goal post.


However, I will still argue that even if humans eventually evolve to all kill themselves, this is yet now the new standard for what is moral.  
This claim implies that evolutionary hardwiring is the standard being used for objective morality, an interesting choice considering my last argument.


Just like an objective mathematical function can change over time, humans can reveal more and more about their current moral standards and understanding. 
The assumption in this test is that humans know the rules, or have a reliable way of unlocking the rules, to objective morality. Those rules being evolution or some unproven, undefined mathematic function.


 The objective morality is not necessarily set in stone and can be based on current patterns of evolution and what is easier to do based on circumstance, if life is too harsh and death is superior, and if the future of humanity is at such stake that humans need certain "rights" to entrust within themselves.
The claim being made this time is that morality, particularly objective morality, can change and will change based on previously stated evolutionary "status quo" 



At the very least, his next paragraph does have some interesting claims or claims we disagree on. So I'll cover some of the claims featured here. 



There is also the objective computer simulated notion where F(x) = 1 as a function.
This claim is part of a hypothetical, this means I could not assume whether he meant it literally or not; however, the nature of the claim also requires him either demonstrate this claim to be true, or not use it to argue further.


It is entirely possible that my imagination, my "belief" is precisely what the mathematical objective F(x) = 1 is. 
The implications from this claim being: If it's possible I may be right. I will address this more in the rebuttals section but for a preview: Something being possible demonstrates literally nothing else, besides it being possible. 



Onto his third paragraph, the last one was a little short, but this one is much longer with many more claims to point out




Similarly, it may seem that our morals are formed from our regular opinions, that our killing of ourselves or killing of others is entirely due to our own thought process. But what if this was indeed the precise fitting of the F(x) = 1? 
The claim here is essentially the same as the last one I covered in the last paragraph. The what-if question. I won't make another refutation here and instead, simply tell you to wait for the rebuttal. 


Eventually, eventually, we could come up with a majority consensus based on past patterns and instinct of how the universe functions.
The claim here is that irrespective of it's origin, the pattern trends would be enough to establish objective morality


 As you can see, each action we take can potentially be plugged into a function where we can derive the objective value based on previous patterns
This claim is a little microcosm of the problem with this argument, it assumes potential as reality, and it ASSERTs this as the case.


There may be certain outliers (like science, which is objective, but has certain exceptions), that influence our objective morality system. We just haven't discovered them yet.
The last claim of the paragraph and the one claim here is that some objective systems may impact this one, and that makes this system more moral? I'm not entirely sure his point here.



In case the voter hasn't noticed, the claims sections are for, A) Noting claims which are particularly wrong, and B) to help the reader understand my opponent's argument from my perspective. That being said, it is also a kind of reaction to my opponent's argument (obviously edited to not include unsavory material) and as such please note how I react to my opponent's claims in his conclusion.



Conclusion: In order to disprove this, con must disprove that the status quo and past patterns, used to help conclude scientific principles, cannot be applied to morality.
The claim here implies that the origin of why the pattern matters is irrelevant, and the fact that we can use these principles which are objective, make this morality objective as well. Rebuttals.


Can con disprove that the moral function is not merely just another mathematical function, if only with thousands if not millions of variables affecting it?
This claim is kind of a summation of his conclusion and asserts that it's possible to be a mathematical function, that means my opponent MUST disprove it or they will lose.



My disposition after this argument was very hostile, and I actually had to wait for a few hours before typing this after I initially read it, or my response would not have been so polite. The impression I'm left here is that you have no experience with the burden of proof. I did not hold you to the burden initially due to the framing of the debate, but you have made claims irrespective of that, therefore the burden must be adopted.



Counter Rebuttals/Rebuttals


1. As noted in my claims section, I have a problem with the claim, "Con must prove that survival is immoral due to the status quo," Why is this the case? This is a fundamental goalpost shifting or red herring that you used in your first argument, more fleshed out! The standard that was set and you agreed to, was that you would have to demonstrate objective morality. Objective Morality being defined as: A moral system true independent from the mind. Therefore the win condition for me would be the opposite, not one point that is arbitrary in the first place. 

1a. Referring back to the claim in (1) the status quo, defined as the existing state of affairs, has not been proven to be true independent from the mind. Why is this status quo preferred over the universal status quo, or the population of pigs status quo? This is a question I have asked in every single one of my rebuttals and have yet to receive a proper answer.

2. This entire status quo argument is still based on evolutionary hard-wiring, while the facts of evolution are true regardless of mind, and is therefore objective. Applying this standard to morals, however? This has not been demonstrated by the con, instead, he insists on moving on to a topic as if I have already agreed to his preconceived notions. My opponent has not answered the question and has not justified any of the arguments being used here reliably. 

2a. On top of that, even if it wasn't based on the evolutionary hard-wiring argument, it would still be invalid. Let me explain, you say its the "status quo" the thing is, different people have different of that status quo. While surviving may be what you think it is, others may think the main status quo is thriving. Which status quo you use is entirely subjective. 

3. The next important claim made by Pro is this hypothetical mathematical function. Indeed it is possible that there is a mathematical function which describes a set of objective morality. Just like there is a possibility I have a thousand dollars in 5 dollar bills in my wallet. Exactly how it is possible that their is a mathematical function which describes how Joe Biden can beat Donald Trump in the 2020 elections. I think the Pro knows where I'm going with this. Indeed such a function as f(x) = 1, could exist, does it? You haven't provided evidence that it does. As you have made the assertion the BoP is on you.

3a. To completely finish the claim of the mathematical function, regardless of its existence, this equation still would not be objective. The data being may be objective, but the elaboration of said data isn't. As I've already asked, why does survival of the human race matter, independent from minds? It doesn't not that you've justified as least. 

3b. For the very last claim I have pretty much the same rebuttal as I had in (3a). You see regardless of what objective data you add onto the table, function, graph, whatever, the premise of the matter. The foundation has not been proven objective. To tie these rebuttals all in a neat little bow: the status quo being survival has no impact of the objectivity of said claim. Due to the fact that the choice of said status quo is completely arbitrary. 



Constructives



    • Extend: 
    1. No valid standard for objective morality

    2. Referenced syllogism that concludes that there is no objective morality

    3. Referenced syllogism that concludes that there is subjective morality

    4. Arbitrary choice of standard

    • Using the logic the pro used in the "Objective Function" section of his argument (practically all of it), I could similarly claim that subjective morality is the always the function. Just like you cannot divide a fraction with a zero as a denominator, I'll claim that a graph trying to graph objective morality would not work. Why? I don't know. Do I have any proof of this claim? No. Then why do I claim this? Because it's possible.
    [Note II: This last constructive is a satirical look at a summation of my opponent's argument]



    Conclusion



    My opponent has failed to answer the question I proposed last round adequately. I'll pose it again, why is this standard objective? Why THAT status quo? To address the other half of your argument, in order for me to even consider taking this as an answer you would have to prove the existence of this mathematical function.

    The Pro has ignored 80% of my other rebuttals and 90% of my constructives. As such; even if I were to concede on this particular point (which to be clear: I'm not) They would have to debunk or provide counter rebuttals to my other points. He has engaged in non-sequitur after non-sequitur, committed red herring fallacies, and he has shifted the goal post. 

    Take note of these dishonest or faulty maneuvers in discourse. Thank you for your argument regardless. One more thing, just because I find your argument detestable does not mean I have anything against the pro personally. He seems a nice enough guy, and none of this should be taken personally. With that all said, vote pro.





    Pro
    I apologize for my absurd argument, as I am playing devil's advocate. Now then, Con's crux relies on the following:
    1a. Referring back to the claim in (1) the status quo, defined as the existing state of affairs, has not been proven to be true independent from the mind. Why is this status quo preferred over the universal status quo, or the population of pigs status quo? This is a question I have asked in every single one of my rebuttals and have yet to receive a proper answer.

    2. This entire status quo argument is still based on evolutionary hard-wiring, while the facts of evolution are true regardless of mind, and is therefore objective. Applying this standard to morals, however? This has not been demonstrated by the con, instead, he insists on moving on to a topic as if I have already agreed to his preconceived notions. My opponent has not answered the question and has not justified any of the arguments being used here reliably. 

    as well as the idea that the patterns cannot be graphed onto the mathematical function. But I have already proved that our past patterns have showed that we have survived. Similar to earth's constant gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, and other scientific constants, this has shown to be extremely difficult to surpass -- we have anti-gravity chambers, we have space ships, yes, we can make acceleration overall not equal to 9.8 m/s^2, but cannot deny that earth itself has 9.8m/s^2, rounded to the nearest tenths decimal. I have shown that without any outside interference, species tend to survive -- All animals that are currently alive, are self-evidently alive. The human race has obviously not gone extinct. Therefore, the evolution constant is "survive". Consider if Morality was about the objective scientific standard I had set instead. Let me ask:
    - is it "moral" (right/correct) to say, that Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, without friction, without air resistance, in a vacuum? Yes. Okay, we have established this.
    Therefore, it is also moral to say that we tend to survive, and that the moral thing to do is to survive. It would be strange to contend that "in a vacuum, it is immoral (wrong, should not be done) to follow earth's gravitational pull of 9.8 m/s^2", despite the established scientific rule. Any normal human being should fall to earth at 9.8m/s^2 provided they are naked in a vacuum while being pulled only by Earth. This is just the way science is. You can't go against it, as far as we know. So you can clearly see here I establish objective morality and immorality. 
    Morality adds a lot of things into the equation. Con has mentioned suicide seemingly to contradict my argument, but it would be like saying "oh yeah, now the human has a jetpack, and we see he is not falling to earth at 9.8 m/s^2, which violates the scientific discovery. Clearly, science is subjective." No. This makes zero sense. There is something actively going against the force of gravity, and our "happiness" is also taken as some force which resists the idea of dying, as well as the "suffering" which increases the "gravity of the situation" (get it? Okay, bad pun). 

    It is apparent that Morality is objective. Even if pro suggests there may be shades of grey, there are infinitely many numbers between 0 and 1 that could potentially represent the morality of what is correct and incorrect for a human being to do, and be graphed as a function against many variables. I have shown with past examples of survival, and science, that there are indeed, definitive ways to know precisely what you should do (fall to earth at 9.8 m/s^2 in a vacuum) and cannot and should not do (for example, magically float away and form a black hole out of nowhere). Vote for pro.