Is Objective Morality real?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
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.
Conduct to CON for PRO repeatedly switching arguments.
ARGS:
PRO's original central argument is a Kritik... but it doesn't sell at all.
"Therefore, no matter what you argue from, morality is objectively bad, because its impact on the universe is none."
Does something not mattering make it a bad thing? And how does "everything doesn't matter" guide people's actions? Y'know, the entire purpose of morality?
CON easily wins out R1 with "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."
PRO then 180s and says his REAL argument is that "humanity is hardwired to have a collective standard naturally." He gives no evidence here. I think he would've done well to cite the fact that "morality" and "altruism" are helpful survival traits according to science. I am also docking conduct points for the total bait & switch.
CON rightly points out that objective morality has to matter independently of humanity.
PRO baits & switches AGAIN on their own survival argument.
VERDICT:
PRO, you have to settle on an argument and push for it from the beginning. You can't just switch your entire case every round. Furthermore, you have to get your definitions straight. You agreed to the definition that objective is "independent of mind." So, your original Kritik was an objective doctrine, but the rest of your arguments weren't. Either work under the given framework, or challenge it!
CON, good job pointing out inconsistencies. However, you need to leverage those inconsistencies more. You could've also done well to point out to the judge PRO's constant bait & switch technique.
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?
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.
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
Sorry, I did not think my post was accepted so I posted again.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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?
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.
Sorry, that was R2 I was quoting your syllogism from, not R1.
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.
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.
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.
In round 4, the last note should be Note III instead of Note II, my bad.
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)
No problem, its definitely an interesting point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody's hearing nothin!
Anyway, welcome to the site!
I praise you for your bravery.
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.
Backwardseden! Backwardseden! Backwardseden!
https://youtu.be/d4ftmOI5NnI?t=127
Do not speak of that name here...
Thankfully not. My impression must have been better than I thought, though. Of course, backwardseden is pretty easy to imitate.
I'm going to be honest with you- I had some flashbacks there, I almost thought he followed me here.
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.
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.
Oh hi, I am known as anc2006 on DDO. This is me here. Welcome to the site!
Welcome to the site!
Also, nice classic BQ topic.