Morality is subjective

    Thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss this topic with you, I look forward to our conversation. The con accepts the definitions proposed by the pro as they are well substantiated and documented.

    Before delving too far into my own argument, I would like to make a claim as to the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the side claiming that something exists, rather than the side claiming it doesn't. This is done because it's possible to prove the existence of something, but in many cases it's nigh impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. One can prove the existence of a ghost with irrefutable evidence, but one can never truly 'disprove' it, as the story around it, the definition of the ghost, will always adapt to fit the new scenario. At first it's appearance resembles that of it's living counterpart and it can move objects and be felt-- then it becomes invisible when one proves it cannot be seen, then it becomes untouchable and can move through objects when it is proven to not be touched. Therefore, in discourses of such matters, the burden of proof is always on the one that claims something exists.  At a first glance, one might be forgiven for determining that the burden of proof would then lie on the con, as I will be arguing toward the existence of objective 'an objective moral system', while the pro will be arguing that it does not exist. However, I would implore you to consider it this way; in the case that there is a god, a creator, or some kind of superior being that dictates our reality; then it goes without saying that our truth must come from that being. The logic then follows that in a world ruled by such a being, all moral truths would come from it as well. If you forgo this possibility-- and instead opt to establish a world view based on empirical evidence and rational thought, you would be forced to concede that our reality has definite proportions, finite construction, and in other words, one, single,  and objective reality.  In a world governed by natural events, there is always a factual truth, regardless of our subjective interpretations of that truth. We as humans perceive the world through our senses, we touch, we taste, we see, we hear and we smell. We do not directly perceive the world, rather we formulate our own subjective view of this objective reality. It then stands to reason that there is by default, outside of creationism, an objective truth in all things. By this argument, I would like to claim that the burden of proof in this debate lies on the pro-- as they are claiming that there is no truth in regards to morality. I do not need to prove what the objective morals are, nor do I need to prove that anyone can reasonably infer them. There is an objective truth, regardless of our own perceptions. 

My opponents line of reasoning is precisely as follows: 

(1) Morality is a doctrine or system of moral conduct. 

(2) Morals are principles of right and wrong behavior.

(3) Behavior is a manner of conducting ones self. 

(4) Anything that is peculiar to a particular individual, modified or affected by personal views, experience or background is by definition subjective. 

    This reasoning starts off well, and I am inclined to agree that you could conclude that 'Morality is a system of principles of right and wrong ways of conducting ones self'. However, the jump from (3) to (4) is unsubstantiated and misses the logical steps necessary to make that claim. The pro is effectively arguing that since moral systems judge the actions of an individual, that it is by definition subjective. This is misguided for two reasons. 

(1) The moral systems in question do not judge a single person, rather they judge all people. The argument is that behavior is about the way an individual conducts themselves, but the moral systems themselves are not judging the behavior of only one person; they are judging the behavior of all people. If I were to tell you that a shirt is worn by a single person, would you then conclude that the idea of shirts applies only to one individual? Of course not, you'd understand that each shirt is worn by one person, but that each person can then wear one shirt. In this light morals are the same; the moral itself can be applied to an individual, and then judges that individuals behavior; but you must not forget, morals are defined as 'principles', in other words, they are constructs meant to be applied. They are by definition then, applicable to all people. They are not subjective simply due to the fact they judge one individual at a time, they are objective, but can be used as a lens of judgement which can be fixated upon any one subject. 

    My opponent claims here that since no one set of morals is agreed upon by all individuals that they must be subjective. This in itself contradicts reality, and can be illustrated quite easily. If you were to examine any scenario where two people disagree, you would find that there is in fact a truth regardless of the 'consensus' about it. There either is a god, or there is not one; regardless of if we as humans have come to agree on which it is. If a man is murdered and another put on trial, the prosecution and the defense may digress, but the reality of the situation is never changed. The man on trial either did or did not commit the crime. When the trial proceeds and the discourse occurs, the only thing that may sway or change is the perception of those involved. People may have their own bias views, some people may have opinions which become altered. Some people may have been right before, and are now wrong afterwards, while the converse may occur as well. Simply put, reality is not changed or determined by the subjective views of humanity. Our perceptions, our beliefs and our understanding may be altered and subjective, but the reality is always the same. Morals are no exception. One culture may claim murder is wrong, while another may condone it. One society may claim capital punishment is murder and thus wrong, while another may call it justice. An individual may perceive abortion as murder, while another may believe it is not. There is no doubt that people will debate these concepts; but you must remember, it is not the morals that are subjective, it is our views, our perceptions and our understanding of these morals that are distorted. We as humans distort all that we experience through our own senses, our own biases and our own experiences. That said, the object of our distortion is not the reality we perceive, but instead our perception of the reality. 

    This argument falls before my previous rebuttals and requires no reiteration, but I will give a simplified explanation for this point in particular. The pro insists that objective morality does not exist, simply because we will distort it as we perceive it. I have explained earlier that we do not distort the truth, we instead distort our own views of it; regardless of it perceive something accurately, it still exists. The pro also claims we cannot prove that it exists, but in this case as described in my opening statements, the burden of proof lies on the pro. They are arguing that there is no truth, in other words, they are arguing the existence of something that contradicts our very reality.

Morals must either be defined as objective truths, or as opinions. If a moral is defined as an objective truth, such as 'killing is wrong', it must by definition be based on something objective; in this light, the moral must either be correct or incorrect, killing must either be wrong, or it must not be wrong. In this case there is an objective truth, akin to the facts of a murder or the structure of a cat's DNA, it must have a basis in reality. If a moral is defined as anything besides an objective truth, it must then be defined as an opinion; in such a case the moral can be interpreted as an objective statement of some subjects opinion on some particular matter. To provide an example for clarification; let's examine the moral of 'abortion is wrong'. Either, this must be defined as a statement of fact, or a statement of opinion. If it is defined as a statement of fact, abortion must then be wrong, or it must not be wrong. People may have their own distorted views as to whether or not they agree with the moral being right or with the moral being wrong, but all that is distorted is their perception of it. By definition, it must be a fact-- a right one, or a wrong one. Now, if morals are not defined as objective facts, they must be defined as opinions. In such a case the moral cannot be 'abortion is wrong' or 'abortion is evil', it must then be a statement of ones preference. While one may understandably mistake this for moral relativism, you must understand the distinction here; at this point the moral is defined as an objective statement of one's views or preferences. In other words, the moral is not 'abortion is wrong', but rather 'this church believes that abortion is wrong'-- which can then be framed in a way that you can verify it, or deny it. Either the church as a whole does feel this way, or it does not. The same logic extends to all individuals-- if I claim I have the moral view that killing is wrong, by the definition of moral being an opinion, it means that the moral is functionally a statement that I as an individual am either for, or against the concept of killing. If you could read my mind, or interpret the pattern of neurons firing in my brain, you could objectively determine whether or not this was true, regardless of your personal views, backgrounds, or any other subjective qualities. There would be an objective truth-- regardless of if you could prove it, know it, or even think it.