Is Objective Morality real?

1417

rating

158

debates

32.59%

won

Description

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

09.15.2020 02:29AM

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.

09.15.2020 02:56AM

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

09.15.2020 07:34AM

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

Value - " somethi ng (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!

09.15.2020 01:18PM

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

09.16.2020 05:35PM

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

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

09.16.2020 07:04PM

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

09.17.2020 05:00PM

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.

09.17.2020 06:13PM

Pro

I apologize for my absurd argument, as I am playing devil's advocate. Now then, Con's crux relies on the following:

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.

11.11.2020 09:50PM

#34

-->

@Theweakeredge

YOU: "I will not respond to anything here. Full stop. I will be more than happy to address your points. Just go to my morality subjectivism ama."

Send me the link or go to my page,

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=28&post_number=677

That is the first occurrence I had with you regarding morality. The topic was designed to test which system of belief is more reasonable to believe. Thus I would encourage you to go there. Do you want me to post my conversation in regards to your debate there?

11.11.2020 09:45PM

#33

-->

@Theweakeredge

YOU: "Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:

Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.

What I mean is that objective morality is something that is true as a law (like the laws of physics) regardless of a mind or anything else. That is the literal definition. Your argument is literally proving my point, morality, as is defined, can literally not be objective. That's how morality works, and that was my argument."

***

First, common sense tells me your definition of "Objective morality" does not stand the logic test. That gives me the right to question it. Next, I am willing to take this to the forum, "Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?"

The fact is that you mentioned your two debates as a badge of honour. Thus, I brought the subject up here. Do you want me to cut and paste this to the forum? If you want a formal debate on the subject, I am willing. As I said in my first post here, you would need to change the challenge's wording. I said:

ME (Post 22): "I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral, then there is no 'good' or 'right.'"

So, I do not believe objective morality exists unless God exists. If you want to argue along those lines, then we can discuss the details. I.e., We would also have to agree to terms for such a debate - how many characters, how many rounds, voting format, etcetera.

11.11.2020 09:31PM

#32

-->

@PGA2.0

I will not respond to anything here. Full stop. I will be more than happy to address your points. Just go to my morality subjectivism ama

11.11.2020 09:29PM

#31

-->

@Theweakeredge

Sorry, I did not think my post was accepted so I posted again.

11.11.2020 09:28PM

#30

-->

@PGA2.0

Either challenge me to a debate or go to my actual forum about moral subjectivity, don't flood a place that's inconvenient to type on:

Also - I used the dictionary definitions of both, what gives your opinion more validity than the dictionary? Please explain that to me.

11.11.2020 09:28PM

#29

YOU: "I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind. Therefore you can not have objective morality."

YOU: "Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and, therefore not objective."

***

Next, you stated objective morality does not exist as far as you know, and you pointed out the two debates you had to prove this in the forum. This is what you said:

YOU: "I'll cover morality first: I do not believe objective morality exists. You can see this from my two negative positions regarding it within my debates."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4893-morality-is-atheism-more-reasonable-than-theism?page=28&post_number=677

I am showing that you do not live consistently with your belief system. When that happens(inconsistency), it is usually a good sign that you are deceiving themselves. I believe you believe objective morality exists, or are you telling me that it is EVER right to rape an innocent little child? I pick the most horrendous example to show you that you can't live consistently with your own system of thinking, or do you actually think it is permissible to rape innocent little children, that there is nothing objectively wrong in doing so???

So, stop bluffing yourself. Objective morals do exist. You justify them with God, not your subjective, limited, relative mindset.

11.11.2020 09:26PM

#28

-->

@Theweakeredge

YOU: "I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind, therefore you can not have objective morality."

YOU: "Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and therefore not objective."

***

Next, you stated objective morality does not exist as far as you know and you pointed out the two debates you had to prove this in the forum. This is what you said:

I am showing that you do not live consistently with your belief system. When that happens(inconsistency), it is usually a good sign that you are deceiving themselves. I think that you do believe objective morality does exist or are you telling me that it is EVER right to rape an innocent little child? I pick the most horrendous example to show you that you can't live consistently with your own system of thinking, or do you actually think it is permissible to rape innocent little children, that there is nothing objectively wrong in doing so???

So, stop bluffing yourself. Objective morals do exist. You justify them with God, not your subjective, limited, relative mindset.

Again, you challenged me in

11.11.2020 09:16PM

#27

-->

@Theweakeredge

Once again, I have shown that you can live with 'no objective morality' in theory but not in practice or experientially just like in the empirical system of values you can, in theory, express infinity, but you can't in practice or experientially. One of the main systems of proof is the livability of that system and you can't live with your views, only express them. They don't work in practice unless you have no conscience, which is a very small percentage of actual people.

11.11.2020 09:10PM

#26

-->

@Theweakeredge

R3:

I came to my first stoppage here:

YOU: "Objective Morality - A moral system true independent from the mind."

I do not accept this definition. I would argue that 'objective morality' is what actually is rather than what is dependent on a contingent mindset. A mind is still necessary for morality since values are mindful qualities. If you have no actual what is, regarding moral values, then you can't have morality. All you can have is preference and opinion enforced through charisma or might. That does not make something right. It only makes it possible. "Right" has to conform to the ideal. The ideal is the 'best' that right is compared with. It has to be fixed or else the value can mean anything. If there is no ideal then what are you comparing it to? What did someone like? That makes nothing right or else Hitler's killing of six million Jews was right for him and those who supported him. Are you willing to go there?.

Now, here is the rub, does Thereaderedge live as though there are no fixed or right values, no objective morality? I say no. I say he can't. As soon as someone intentionally injures a loved member of his family for fun he would argue that such an act was wrong, and if wrong is nothing more than subjective preference then it is perfectly acceptable to the other person. So, what is his objection based on?

11.11.2020 08:58PM

#25

-->

@PGA2.0

I'm not debating you in a comment section, but there is a fairly easy thing to point out: Exactly. You can't have morality without a mind, therefore you can not have objective morality.

Even if a god did exist - things it said wouldn't necessarily be true. It would still be based on a mind (the literal definition of subjective) and therefore not objective.

11.11.2020 08:46PM

#24

-->

@Theweakeredge

Sorry, that was R2 I was quoting your syllogism from, not R1.

11.11.2020 08:42PM

#23

-->

@Theweakeredge

Your syllogism from Round 1:

YOU:
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.

I question P1 to its validity. The premise is false. Objective morality cannot be independent of mind, since morality is a mindful thing. Morality is not possible without this thing called a mind. I would argue that objective morality is dependent on a necessary Mind (i.e., God), not contingent minds. If God did not exist then morality would be nothing more than preference. Preference is a personal taste or opinion. Thus it describes, not prescribes - "I like ice-cream describes what you like, what tastes yummy to you, not what I SHOULD do (an obligation). You are not obligated to like ice-cream although you may like it if it tastes 'good' to you.

Next, 'good' or 'right' has to be grounded to something for it to be meaningful, a fixed standard. If the standard is not fixed and universal then how can you determine whether it is good or right? Good or right in relation to what? Your personal preference? That makes nothing right. It just makes it doable.

Finally, if there is no objective standard, then life becomes unlivable. You can offer your opinion ("I don't like that") but you can never say it is wrong ("It is wrong to torture innocent children for fun"). Imagine, that would be dependent on who believes it rather than on it being wrong. You can't live by your own system because as soon as someone applies their preferences on you (that harms you) you realize without objective values life becomes unlivable. So it does not pass the experiential test of life, let alone the logically consistent one (i.e., the law of identity, or a thing it what it is --> A=A; Right = Right). So your thinking is false in a number of ways, per above.

So, it is more reasonable to believe in objective moral values than to dismiss them.

11.11.2020 08:07PM

#22

-->

@Theweakeredge

I would have argued a different debate. I have only read the Description so far.

If I was formulating the Description (predebate), I would have argued that objective morality is necessary for there to be such a thing as morality, rather than just subjective opinion and preference resulting in 'might makes right.' If there is nothing objectively moral then there is no 'good' or 'right.' Do whatever you want if you have the power to do so, like Kim Jong-Un or President Qi Jiping of China. If there are no objective morals, then how can you criticize someone as wrong? How can you object to what Hitler did to the Jews or five million other undesirables?

Okay, on to the rest of your debate.

09.17.2020 07:33PM

#21

-->

@seldiora

Overall good debate, I think I might've won if we were going points basis, especially considering how you kind of ignored half of my points. But I did like your counter rebuttal.

09.17.2020 05:02PM

#20

In round 4, the last note should be Note III instead of Note II, my bad.

09.17.2020 10:16AM

#19

-->

@seldiora

My dude.... you have no idea how much I want to respond with a single sentence. It's fine though, I'm gonna write another argument that's 5 times longer than yours and you'll still only reference ONE point. (Well, 2, but that's not as dramatic)

09.15.2020 03:14AM

#18

-->

@seldiora

No problem, its definitely an interesting point.

09.15.2020 03:05AM

#17

-->

@Theweakeredge

sorry if my round seems a bit sharp and critical, it's a little tricky but I'm sure you can point out the flaw somewhere in there.

09.15.2020 02:34AM

#16

-->

@seldiora

I look forward to your argument, but do realize that nihilism doesn't have much to do with the pro side of the debate. I mean, it kind of does, but it's not an enviable position.

09.15.2020 02:25AM

#15

-->

@Intelligence_06

What's sad is that's how he talks to everyone who disagrees with him. Religion, politics, even something as innocent as sports. The irony is that if you talk to him about the vacation he went on or the music he likes (there are some comments on his profile to that effect), he can be very human. I pity him.

09.15.2020 02:21AM

#14

-->

@Intelligence_06

I am a formerly Christian turned agnostic (not athiest, as I haven't closed the door entirely on religion. My opinion about it is literally: "I don't know") So yeah... that does say a lot about backwardseden.

Intelligence_06

09.15.2020 02:18AM

#13

-->

@MisterChris

If a person with no strong religious belief hates another atheist who criticizes not his group, it means probably the latter is comparable to a reproductive organ.

09.15.2020 02:16AM

#12

-->

@SirAnonymous

Nobody's hearing nothin!

09.15.2020 02:16AM

#11

-->

@Theweakeredge

Anyway, welcome to the site!

Intelligence_06

09.15.2020 02:13AM

#10

-->

@seldiora

I praise you for your bravery.

09.15.2020 02:13AM

let's see how con fares against Nihilism, if he is so set on human values being impossible to use as a crux for morals.

09.15.2020 02:09AM

-->

@MisterChris

Backwardseden! Backwardseden! Backwardseden!
https://youtu.be/d4ftmOI5NnI?t=127

09.15.2020 02:05AM

-->

@SirAnonymous

Do not speak of that name here...

09.15.2020 02:04AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Thankfully not. My impression must have been better than I thought, though. Of course, backwardseden is pretty easy to imitate.

09.15.2020 02:00AM

-->

@SirAnonymous

I'm going to be honest with you- I had some flashbacks there, I almost thought he followed me here.

09.15.2020 01:55AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

You bet it would be trolled, you teeny bopper vegetable drinking cauliflower yeast infection orange peel! You silly Christia-what, you're an atheist? Oops, no backsies, my miss-steak! Let me treat you to some of my original insults that I thought of with my own brain by flipping dictionaries open to random pages, you lemon-lime soda broccoli burned bad-comic-book-on-the-rack window curtain...

Hmm, my impression isn't very good. Sounds more like the contents of a trash can than a true backwardseden spiel.

09.15.2020 01:41AM

Thank you for the welcomes! I've actually wanted to debate this topic for a long time but this specific would be trolled on debate.com in minutes. Thank you Intelligence_06 for recommending me here.

Intelligence_06

09.15.2020 01:37AM

-->

@Theweakeredge

Oh hi, I am known as anc2006 on DDO. This is me here. Welcome to the site!

09.15.2020 01:32AM

Welcome to the site!

Also, nice classic BQ topic.

Barney

09.28.2020 08:29PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro opens with a Kritik that everything is immoral and objectively meaningless.
Con points out the errors that if meaningless, it's not objective morality.

Con makes a case using an intentionally invalid logical form to show that morality comes from the very subjective mind, so is not objective.

Pro argues until we find God or aliens to tell us what to do, there must be some standard; and seems to argue a Darwinism ethical standard of survival of the species.
Con challenges that outside of any species, the survival of it is meaningless (obvious counters of the web of life come to mind, but it's pro's job to point such out).
Pro defends that it's not immoral to want to survive, which misses the point that it should be universally moral to outside perspectives.

Pro finally argues that within the range of morality, one has got to be my chance objective... Sadly, it was his job to indicate one.

BearMan

09.27.2020 05:42PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Conduct to CON for PRO repeatedly switching arguments.