Morality is subjective
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules to be followed:
1. Forfeiture = loss
2. Insulting = -1 conduct
3. Insisting that I did something I haven't done or that I didn't do something I clearly did = -1 conduct
4. Definitions must have evidence behind it to be considered valid
5. Anything not mentioned in the description is considered to be what is normally considered for it, instead of outright nonexistent
6. Have fun
a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct
a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
Systems of conduct regarding principles of right and wrong methods of personal conduct varies based on the person
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
- Morality, as it is defined, concerns individual behavior which makes it subjective.
- It is not yet proven that anything agrees on anything, and no doctrine of morality is agreed by everybody.
- Objective morality is impossible to prove as when we consider morality, we are already perceiving it and thus "distorting it".
- Morality is subjective. Vote for Pro.
- Morality, as it is defined, concerns individual behavior which makes it subjective.
- It is not yet proven that everyone agrees on anything, and no doctrine of morality is agreed by everybody.
- Objective morality is impossible to prove as when we consider morality, we are already perceiving it and thus "distorting it".
- Morality is subjective. Vote for Pro.
- Morality, as it is defined, concerns individual behavior which makes it subjective.
- It is not yet proven that anything agrees on anything, and no doctrine of morality is agreed by everybody.
- Objective morality is impossible to prove as when we consider morality, we are already perceiving it and thus "distorting it".
- I have refuted all three of the pro's claims, leaving the pro with no arguments to contest against my side.
- I have put the burden of proof on the pro, meaning they require valid arguments, evidence or proof.
- I have also demonstrated that by definition a moral system must either be defined as a system of facts or as a system of beliefs; in either case the moral statement itself has an objective truth, regardless of one's own subjective views on the matter.
- Morality is objective, vote for con.
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.
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.
Morals must either be defined as objective truths, or as opinions.
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.
There would be an objective truth-- regardless of if you could prove it, know it, or even think it.
- It is true that abortion causes pain of the mother
- Thus one ought to not abort
- Objective morality can't even exist due to the nature of morality
- Even if there exists objective truth, we cannot prove it true
- Morality is defined as to conduct personal behavior
- Moralities are subjective facts
- We cannot derive moral statements from facts, even if those facts are objectively true
- In the end, it is still unproven that morality is objective
- Morality is still proven to be subjective. Vote Pro.
- Objective morality can't even exist due to the nature of morality
- Even if there exists objective truth, we cannot prove it true
- Morality is defined as to conduct personal behavior
- Moralities are subjective facts
- We cannot derive moral statements from facts, even if those facts are objectively true
- In the end, it is still unproven that morality is objective
- Morality is still proven to be subjective. Vote Pro.
Con forfeited 75% of their rounds
Due to con missing 3 out of four rounds, their case does not merit consideration.
Con failed to follow the clearly laid out rule in the resolution that forfeiting a round was an immediate loss. Moreover, they also forfeit 75% of the debate entirely.
I would advise not to write long paragraphs like that all the time, it just gives both me and possibly the voters a headache trying to read it.
On a side note, even if physics are objective morality still cannot be automatically be proven to be objective, due to that physics are all “is” statements and “is-ought” statements aren’t automatically connected to each other.
Alright
Let's talk about this elsewhere. This debate is about morality and not science.
What are you talking about? Newton's law of gravitational attraction is objective because any person anywhere can use the equation to accurately describe and predict the attraction of gravity. We can calculate mass and distance. Therefore, we can calculate gravitational attraction.
It is influenced by personal feelings. Newton’s laws are subjective. We just feel like that it is true. In reality, it is all due to that we see the world in a certain way to make Newton’s conclusions seem true, when in reality there is no actual way to prove that it will apply the next time a force is upon an object. We simply cannot prove it.
In order for something to be objective, It needs to be determinable independently and it's truth value doesn't require any kind of emotion or personal feelings. Newton's laws of gravitational attraction fit every single criteria of objective.
No. The fact that maths and science are advancing every single day means that we cannot know that we truly gathered "objective science" no matter how far we are. We used to consider Newton objectively correct, but now we use his theory in support of someone elses' more exact theories, like ones coming from Einstein.
Do you think science and mathematics are objective?
Con either accepted knowing this or accepted without the knowledge of this, in either way bringing up this fact would be devastating for him: If he considered enough, he may have left without accepting.
Though, if he accepted this, there is a chance that he has a counter to it.
If one wants to play the sceptic game, they can very easily make the argument that absolutely every fact is subjective.
Define subjective, because I would say it's objective, insofar as it's intersubjective