Instigator / Pro
14
1528
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#3577
THBT: Morality is not objective
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
ossa_997
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1468
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Definitions:
Morality = a set of rules, explicit or implicit, governing the intrinsic good or bad nature of an action
Objective morality = morality exists as a universal property outside of an individual perceiver
BoP:
Ossa_997: Morality is likely not objective
Contender: Morality is likely objective
RULES:
1. No Kritik.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. Agreeing to this debate entails agreement to the rules.
4. Be decent.
5. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.
Round 1
Thanks for accepting, and apologies for the late argument, it's been a busy week.
-
Preliminary
I’ll keep this quite short. Two arguments to begin with. First on the subjective nature of what is good, and
second on the very nature of truth morality asserts itself onto.
I. The subjective nature of good and evil
Opening argument is quite simple:
P1. Morality is a measure of good
P2. What constitutes good is not objective
C1. Morality is not objective
P2:
P1: What is objective is immutable
‘All philosophers suffer from the same defect, in that they start with the present-day manand think they can arrive at their goal from analyzing him’- Fredrich Nietzsche (Human, All too Human)
Young children are proficient at learning through imitation from a very early age. PRO posits that morality is an idea ingrained by society in susceptible children through an osmotic process. A world where totally different ideas of morality exist is easily conceivable under our current state of the universe, and therefore possible.
C: What is good is not objective
Hence P2 holds.
C1: Follows from (P1) and (P2)
II. Argument on the epistemological class of morality
The very nature of morality prevents any possibility of the assertion of its objectiveness.
a. The descriptive prescriptive divide
P1: What is objective must describe a descriptive (pertaining to statements of reality) statement about the universe
P2: Morality does not describe, but rather prescribes a course of action by making a qualitative statement about said action's nature.
C: Morality both is not objective, but moral truths also exist in a class of epistemological statements that cannot even attempt to lay claim to objectivity.
P1:
Statements that are unanimously agreed to be objective describe a set of existence propositions. (See definition 2a) For example, if PRO asserts that they are a human being, the objectivity of such a statement cannot be denied if true. On the other hand a statement about the quality of a fact can have no assertion to objectivity. Take for example the statement 'red is the best colour' or even 'red is good'. Even if every human being suddenly agreed to such a statement, that would not make it any less subjective. In the same vein, morality is merely an assertion to quality and so cannot exist outside of human subjectivity. Nature speaks the language of 'is', not 'good' or 'bad'.
P2:
See definition.
See definition.
C:
Follows. The burden is now on CON to establish that morality is in fact describing something that IS.
b. Burden on CON to establish an objective source of morality
Morality as it exists seems to be a conception of human thought. In order for CON to satisfy their burden in this debate, they must demonstrate a way that human morality has formed following some objective standard, i.e an external, human-indepent source of morality.
In fact, this objective source does not need to even be proved, but merely demonstrated to be more viable than alternative options. Such a source does not seem possible, but I'll leave that to CON to contest.
Conclusion:
I have shown that morality is not only based off a subjective measure, but also why it cannot lay claim to objectivity whatsoever.
I pass onto CON to open their case.
Thanks ossa_997 for instigating the debate. No worries on the late argument, I think I’m just as late as you are if not more.
I. Objective Morality Is Our Default Assumption
I. Objective Morality Is Our Default Assumption
This argument comes in three forms.
Argument from Taste: We treat morality differently than we do our subjective preferences, such as our opinions on food. If I don't like noodles, it doesn't make much sense to say "I'm glad I wasn't born in China, because than I would like noodles!" However, it does make sense to say something like "I'm glad I wasn't born centuries ago because then I would think the Earth is flat!" It also makes sense to say something like "I'm glad I wasn't born in 18th century America because than I would have thought that slavery was okay." Thus, we treat moral facts much the same way that we treat descriptive facts.
Argument from Disagreement: We disagree about morality differently than we do our subjective preferences. If my favorite ice cream flavor is strawberry, and my friends is chocolate, than it feels like I am merely stating a preference, and maybe that I am trying to convince them of that preference. If we're having a discussion about whether global warming is or is not real, it feels as though we are getting at some objective truth of the matter. Finally, if we are having a discussion on whether or not abortion is right or wrong, it again feels like we are getting at some sort of objective truth, in the same way as the debate about global warming.
Argument from Counterfactuals: Top hats are out of fashion. However, consider an alternative world where everyone wears top hats, everyone thinks they're cool, and everyone is showing off their favorite top hat. Would it still be true that top hats are out of fashion? No. Smoking causes cancer. Consider a world in which everyone is okay with smoking, and we considered it to be quite harmless. Would it still be true that smoking causes cancer? Yes. Finally, gender-based discrimination is wrong. (Hopefully I don't lose any voters on that one.) Take a hypothetical world in which we believed gender-discrimination was okay, and everyone tries to gender discriminate as much as they can. Would it be true in this world that gender discrimination is morally permissible? Hopefully you're noticing a pattern by now.
Basically what we're doing here is vibe-checking morality, and in doing so we can start to see that morality at least feels the same way that descriptive facts do. In fact, moral premises are some of the premises we are most confident in. This claim feels more secure than claims of moral relativism. Thus, in the absence of a total knock-down of objective morality, there is no reason to abandon it.
Throughout this debate, I hope to show why PRO has no argument against objective morality to reject it, and to show why feeling that morality is objective is enough to prove that it is objective (without any appeal to a higher power)
II. Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Objectivity and Subjectivity
P1: What is objective is immutable
To be immutable means to not change over time, which is a standard that clearly does not apply to objectivity. At one point in time it may be objective that an apple is red, while later it is objectively true that the apple is brown, because it rotted. Do not allow PRO to apply the standard of immutability to objectivity.
While true, conceptions changing does not mean facts changing. Conceptions of the shape of the Earth has changed overtime, yet the Earth has remained round. Just because slavery used to be considered good, does not mean that it was good. Thus, conceptions of what is good changing does not prove that what is good is subjective.
Young children are proficient at learning through imitation from a very early age. PRO posits that morality is an idea ingrained by society in susceptible children through an osmotic process. A world where totally different ideas of morality exist is easily conceivable under our current state of the universe, and therefore possible.
This requires significantly more burden of proof than simply "young children learn through imitation, therefore the entirety of morality is merely learned through imitation. Additionally, it's been shown that infants as young as 3 months old respond very differently to people who help others, versus people who harm others, showing that it's likely that we make moral judgements from birth.
III. The Is/Ought Divide Doesn't Actually Matter
I'm using the term is/ought divide instead of descriptive/prescriptive because it's what is used in the philosophical literature I'm familiar with, and as a neat bonus it saves on the character count lol.
P1: What is objective must describe a descriptive (pertaining to statements of reality) statement about the universe
This is not a given. In fact, there is so much philosophical discussion around this idea that the source my opponent linked is over 15,000 words, doesn't include an argument for why things that are descriptive are true, and is immediately followed by an overview of anti-realism, which argues that all truth is non-objective, and thus what is descriptive is not neccassarily objective. The burden of proof is on PRO to explain why what is objective must describe a descriptive.
Statements that are unanimously agreed to be objective describe a set of existence propositions.
Unfortunately, there are no statements that are unanimously agreed to be objective. This is because it's incredibly easy to play the role of what I call the infinite skeptic. Take a statement that describes a set of existence propositions: "The apple is red."
Normal Person: The apple is red.
Infinite Skeptic: How do you know?
Normal Person: I can see that it is red.
Infinite Skeptic: Why can you trust what you see?
Normal Person: Because my eyes transfer information about the world.
Infinite Skeptic: How do you know that the world is?
In fact, the only descriptive statement that is near-unanimously agreed to be true by philosophers is Descartes's "I think therefore I am." (Hopefully I haven't been too convincing here and sold you on anti-realism) Fortunately, we can find descriptive facts to be objective my presupposing that it is objective that the world exists. If the world exists, then it's true that the world is observable, then it's true that we can observe the world, then it's true that the apple is red. This is an oversimplification but it will do for now.
We can do the same thing for ought statements. In order for ought statements to be true, it is possible that "we ought do no harm." If we ought do no harm than we ought not kill, because to kill would be to do harm. Through this framework, we can create an infinite number of objective moral statements. If you're not convinced, consider a different type of statement that is generally held to be true: a "will-be" statement. It is impossible for us to know that something will be in the same way that it is impossible for us to know that something ought to be. However, if we presuppose that things will be, at least to an extent, as they have been, than we can infer an infinite number of will-be statements, i.e. "Because the sun rises every day, it will rise again tommorow."
In order to reject the epistemology of ought statements, we must also reject the epistemology of many other statements which my opponent holds to be objective in R1.
Follows. The burden is now on CON to establish that morality is in fact describing something that IS.
Incorrect, the burden is on PRO to prove that descriptive facts are objective while prescriptive facts are not.
IV. Conclusion
Morality as it exists seems to be a conception of human thought. In order for CON to satisfy their burden in this debate, they must demonstrate a way that human morality has formed following some objective standard, i.e an external, human-indepent source of morality.In fact, this objective source does not need to even be proved, but merely demonstrated to be more viable than alternative options. Such a source does not seem possible, but I'll leave that to CON to contest.
We can feel that there is something that dictates our opinions on morality, our sense of right and wrong, justice and fairness, what people ought to do. With the absence of a strong enough argument from PRO to reject this argument, we should assume it to be true, in the same way that we assume things such as the world exists. As for the possibility of an external source, it is easy to posit an infinite number of external forces for morality. It's possible that that source could be linked to other unsolved questions, such as where something like consciousness comes from. From our intuitions, it certainly seems more likely than objective morality not existing.
Round 2
Thanks BDPTheGreat, the epithet in your username is starting to make sense now…
1 Rebuttal
I. Immutability and objectivity
Morality is a set of rules that govern a situation. To argue that morality can be objective yet mutable is a tenable position, but not under the assumption set out by con, namely:
if we presuppose that things will be, at least to an extent, as they have been
Taking con’s example of the apple, if the apple was reproduced in the exact same molecular arrangement, and had the same set of light rays reflected into the eye of the observer at the same angle etc., it can be reasonably assumed that the ‘objective fact’ that ‘this apple is red’ will not change. That the laws regarding light reflection and wavelengths will not somehow change.
The same reasoning can be applied to morality, being something that governs a situation. If the exact same situation was reproduced at a different time, the choice of what would be right should stay the same under the same reasoning that one expects the sun to rise the next day. Con must forfeit either 1: Morality can be mutable or 2: The sun can be reasonably expected to rise.
a. Forfeiture of mutability
CON argues for objectivity of ‘ought to be’ statements through an analogy with ‘will be’ statements. I will argue by the same analogy.
‘Ought to be’ and ‘will be’ statements are not different at all by the definition CON proposes. If what ‘ought to be’ is that which fulfills a certain axiom, an ‘ought to be’ statement is the statement that an action will cause something to happen.
If ‘will be’ statements are only objective under the presupposition of immutable natural laws, then so too are moral laws (ought to be statements).
Yet, moral laws have already been shown to be mutable (or at least with their conceptions accepted to be mutable by both sides of the debate) so now CON’s case rests on the fact that previous cultures’ conceptions of morality have been wrong, which I will discuss in 1.II.d.
b. Forfeiture of inductive reasoning
To forfeit the rationality of inductive reasoning is to forfeit the axiomatic system of morality that CON outlines, as there will not be any reasonable way to guarantee that there is a way of fulfilling the axioms, and therefore no way to guarantee a right action, hence any moral framework derived from presuppositions is rendered redundant.
II. The Majority
In appeal to philosophers to rebut the potential existence of descriptive facts CON, makes the realisation that the majority is simply not always correct. The majority would probably not like to forfeit the idea that ‘this apple is red’ is objective. Similarly, even if the majority might act like morality is objective (which I will contend later), the fact that philosophers actively debate such a proposition alludes to something deeper lying behind what people take for granted.
a. Rebuttal from Taste
It is true that if a statement is objective, it will be treated like it is objective. CON affirms the consequent, however, when they attempt to claim that if a statement is treated objectively then the statement itself is objective.
It is true that if a statement is objective, it will be treated like it is objective. CON affirms the consequent, however, when they attempt to claim that if a statement is treated objectively then the statement itself is objective.
As a counterexample, I’ll invoke how people treat money.
The proposition ‘I have $10 in my bank account’ is one that is treated objectively, in that it affects the way one acts, is treated etc.
Any statement of monetary value, however, can hardly be objective as money is a medium of exchange whose worth arises in human instilled values. Money is inter-subjective, and would no longer function if the entire world woke up not believing in it. Yet that would never happen, as the system of money has been so ingrained into society that it is treated as objective.
Similarly, an entire society believing in a moral value causes that value to be held as objective. For example, cowardice in ancient Rome would have been held as objective in that it would be condemned, and unanimously punished.
Furthermore, like how the value of money is instilled through society, so too is morality. The rebuttal CON provided about babies making moral judgements is outside the scope of this debate: moral judgements speak nothing about morality’s objectivity or subjectivity.
Does a society’s belief really make something right?
b. Rebuttal from Disagreement
When morality is argued about, such as in abortion, the disagreement ultimately stems down to subjective preferences. It is not enough for CON to claim that it seems such discourse approaches an objective truth.
Why do I claim this?
When one argues for or against abortion, they make an argument through the frameworks of bodily autonomy or preservation of life. As in this situation, both contradict the other, the arguer is forced to make a choice as to which intuitively feels better, regressing into subjectivity.
c. Rebuttal from counterfactuals
Would it be true in this world that gender discrimination is morally permissible?
Here I must try arguing a fine line without coming off as misogynistic or just a dick in general….
When CON appealed to philosophers, they saw that truths could potentially be uncomfortable. Such a question, however, can simply not be answered by members of present day society due the moral context they are placed in. One only has to look at literature from barely two centuries ago to see that this was the case. Furthermore, systematic discrimination not only occurs but is rampant and accepted in today’s society. Take for example capitalism’s oppression of the poor through almost unbreakable poverty cycles.
Yet capitalism is still accepted, as it allows another value, that of individualism, to flourish. Morality always has been preferences between contradicting values.
And this further reveals the split between absolute and practical truths. Although one might accept idealism, anti-realism etc., that does not mean one practically goes around as if nothing exists outside their senses, or nothing exists whatsoever. In the same sense, a statement about morality being uncomfortable says nothing towards the truth value of the statement or how we should act accordingly.
d. Russell’s teapot, empirical unverificability
The statement that past cultures’ conceptions of morality might have been wrong is untenable as it leads to absurd contradictions. To claim that whole societies might have been wrong about morality, despite feeling objectively in the right, causes any current society’s feelings about what is objectively right to be redundant, as it does not follow how we could be any less mistaken than past cultures. The only judgements that can be passed onto other cultures are those from the perspective of current morality, and so to claim that other cultures were objectively wrong in their morality both begs the question in favour of objective morality, and is also an empirically unverifiable statement.
Bertrand Russell made an analogy to the claim that: there is a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, too small for telescopes to see. The burden of proof in such a situation evidently lies on behalf of the proponent of the absurd statement. When an empirically unverifiable claim is made, the burden of proof lies towards the one making the claim. Hence, CON must justify not only how culture might treat morality as objective, but why that makes morality more objective and ‘right’ than any past cultures that believed so.
2. Arguments
I. Definitional
The definition of objective morality in this debate was not only ‘immutable’ but also ‘external’. Although immutable might be disputable, CON has not offered any satisfactory argument towards the ‘external’ of objective morality. It is not enough to list what such a source could be. Gravity could be millions of invisible angels dragging objects down to earth, yet we know that is not the case (debatable but you get my point).
Occam’s razor states that the most viable theories are the ones with the least unverifiable presuppositions. To argue for objective morality being external causes all sorts of problems with how one can come to know morality from an objective source. The explanation of it being a set of human emotional preferences is far more likely, as most would agree that morality is felt, a verb which PRO employs substantially.
The burden of proof is still on PRO to provide an account for a source of objective morality.
II. Nature of moral ‘truths’
As I alluded to earlier, a framework of axioms might lead to truths in relation to that axiom, but that is rarely the case. Further, morality is not built off a single axiom, but rather many. Even if a moral axiom might mean truths can be arrived at in relation to the axiom, morality still falls in the hand of the subject to grapple with contrasting moral postulates to arrive at their own preference .
Take for example, the French national motto, 'liberty, equality, fraternity'. Even in the first two words, a contradiction arises. One's liberty means that they are free to seek goods and advantages which threaten to usurp equality.
Freedom and legal justice (Marijuana legalisation) , capitalism and equality (Taxing the rich) , modern morality has always been a showdown between contrasting ideas. CON must either forfeit common feelings of morality in order to overcome these contradictions, and in doing so forfeit their main point, or otherwise must accept that morality is a series of contradictions which boil down to subjective choices.
3. Conclusion
It is not enough to simply argue that majority wins. In the acceptance that past cultures could have been wrong about morality, CON leaves a flawed argument in not being able to verify or reason towards why current feelings towards morality mean objectivity. It is these feelings, at the end of the day that cause morality, feeling that is subjective choices between moral contradictons.
Forfeited
Round 3
The debate must go on...
As it's the last round, I'll be offering a few points of summary.
1. Is/Ought Divide
CON attempts to argue that the is/ought divide does not matter due to the fact that certain philosophers deny the difference. CON follows by claiming that objective morality can be built off axioms. Applying the same logic, one realises that the difference between is/ought facts can be established by taking a very simple axiom: that what we see of the world is in fact reality. Furthermore, CON has not really offered sources to back his claim regarding a lack of is facts. The facts that philosophers do not agree says nothing about the nonexistence of descriptive facts. Furthermore, such an argument might hold if one takes the stance that there is an external world inaccessible by our senses. As humans are limited to senses however, it seems that descriptions of sensory experience are enough to fulfill the criterion of being a descriptive fact.
CON has failed to establish that this divide does not exist.
2. Feelings of the majority
Even if all of society unanimously felt something to be the case, that does not elevate the feeling into objectivity, rather some sort of intersubjectivity.
CON argues that our society current feels an objective morality while simultaneously positing that past cultures were simply wrong in their unanimous feelings. The fact that a culture can unanimously wrong, which both sides of the debate agree on, means that CONs assertion that our current morality veers into objectivity is unverifiable, thus an incoherent argument. Even if there existed some sort of objective morality, CONs attempt to reach this objective morality by arguing through an unverifiable fallacy of the majority means that the burden of proof CON has is not fulfilled.
3. Unanimous feelings still contradict
There is a difference between moral frameworks and moral axioms. Morality refers to the implementation of moral frameworks in society. On closer examination, unanimously held moral axioms still contradict, even if taking the axioms as objective, as I have brought up in earlier examples.
The contradiction between these axioms when making any moral choice means a preference, which is inherently subjective.
4. External morality
CON's did not tackle the external side of objective morality, leaving it to purely stipulating that there could be many sources, a largely unsatisfactory argument.
5. Immutability
While an objective and mutable morality could be argued for, CONs analysis does not sufficiently prove this. To hold that morality can both be objective and mutable in fact undermines the nature of morality which CON attempts to account for, as I explained in argument 2.
x.
CON is left defending a thoroughly untenable case. Although each argument posed could be taken by its on merit, viewed holistically CONs case is one full of contradictions. Objective morality is not a default. Rather, morality remains something which most would admit they feel. CON has constructed an empirically unverifiable argument, and so the burden of proof required is far greater than the analysis they have provided. And ultimately, the question of how morality can be external has not been tackled at all by CON.
Vote PRO.
Forfeited
well that's a lovely mindset to have, good luck! you'll gain something from this debate, win or lose.
My skillset has definitely always been more towards the second and third round than towards the first so hopefully things get more clear as the debate goes on
Interesting attempt to solve the problem, although i cant see ossa being dumbstruck by that argument, to say the least.
Pretty strong argument! good job.
I'm not going to debate it with you in the comment section, im going to have an actual debate on the subject (hopefully). If it comes up, you will find an answer too it.
> When people describe an intelligent god they generally mean a self aware conscious creator.
let's say you're right, then what ?
how do you get from that to the completely UNRELATED "god's commandments" ?
It doesn't matter what "personal" god i choose to tell you, as you will find some argument against it and i can simply switch to another concept of god (among the infinite). Its a never ending circle, and i doubt you can factor all of them out to the point of showing all of them certainly don't exist and would have no effect on morality if they did.
When people describe an intelligent god they generally mean a self aware conscious creator. We will go with that definition of intelligence. From looking at material reality, irrespective of human concepts of god, can you completely rule out through looking at the universe that there was no intelligent design?
what is your personally preferred definition of "intelligence" ?
I said intelligent design. Its very easy to say there was no intelligence in the creation of the big bang.
> In this discussion god simply means a creator.
so, functionally indistinguishable from "the big bang"
how does this inform your idea of "objective morality" ?
I'm unsure why people need to have a "personal" god to debunk. We can look at material reality from a stance where we don't involve feelings and personal beliefs with facts of reality. In this discussion god simply means a creator. So looking at reality, can you prove with certainty there was no intelligent design at play in our universe? I talk of no specific religion, lets just look at the facts of the universe. Can you prove its all by chance or without intent?
please share your personally preferred definition of "god"
Why? The spectrums of energy our physical senses can interact with are exceptionally slim compared to what we know is out there....... That's not even considering what we don't know, which will almost certainly be much more.
In theory, God could exist as a form of energy like me and you. After all, we know energy can create consciousness, we're evidence of it. He could simply just exist as energy in a completely different vibrational spectrum, hence why he's invisible and undetectable.
I'm copy and pasting this comment from a previous debate section. Our thinking is extremely biased by your culture and upbringing. This is why we need data, and evidence. We live in a small section of the globe, naturally we may experience statistical outliers. Only when you look at the grand scheme of things and take a wider glance from a wider view will you see the full picture. Do you have the full picture of everything necessary for gods certain disapproval?
> No one can put an estimate on God existing or not existing.
the only thing you have to know is the definition of "god" and the definition of "exist"
If we cannot even find who is worse drivers from our own thinking and observation. Why would we be able to with morality? which is going to be of far more breadth than who is a good driver or not.
Not at all. Do you know if God exists? or is he not a variable at all in objective morality? Those who think they can put an estimate on the variable of Gods existence simply fall for intellectual pride. No one can put an estimate on God existing or not existing. The whole moral realism vs. moral relativism has a lot of assumptionary baggage.
Humans come with all sorts of personal bias's such as the fact most people have the stereotype women are worse drivers, but a quick google search disproves this commonly held belief, men are more likely to be in car crashes (this is why insurance costs more for men). Humans live in our own small worlds, where we're only in contact with a tiny spectrum of just our planet alone, never mind the entire universe or what is potentially beyond. If we cannot find all the variables in intelligence, why are you so sure we have them with morality?
> Do you know all the variables when it comes to morality?
the only thing you have to know is the definition of "objective" and the definition of "subjective"
People being so sure morality is subjective is like people believing black people have lower IQ's because of genes. We just don't know, there's not even enough evidence to currently even put an estimate on how genetic the IQ gap is. That's why the experts don't put an estimate, as its simply not possible with the current information. Do you know all the variables when it comes to morality?
There's too many variables at play for you to assert that. You'll see when i have my debate why its false. I'll directly respond to that comment in my debate.
morality is exactly like language (shaped by geography, time, and culture)
which language do you believe is the "objectively correct" language ?
Would you say that what is good for a cow to eat is also good for you? Something can be a relative truth. To use an example, its true time is both relative and objective at the same time. Almost every philosophical discipline starts with two polar opposites, such as empiricism and rationalism (Kant bridged the gap). Then there's idealism and materialism (the answer once more is likely a mix of them both, dependant arising). The same happened with time, and I'll show the same is the case with objective and subjective morality. Hegel calls this the dialectic method, where we synthesize two different ideas to find the truth.
I'm not going to talk about it here though, I'm planning to debate it after-all.
> Morality doesn't have to be universal for it to be objective.
please explain
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2555-science-is-not-objective
I could barely be considered a human at this point, ossa. My brain has collapsed into a black hole from the sheer gravity of my intellect.
Morality = a set of rules, explicit or implicit, governing the intrinsic good or bad nature of an action
Objective morality = morality exists as a universal property outside of an individual perceiver
I would probably disagree with your objective morality definition. What may be objectively correct for me to eat (assuming objective morality) is going to be different from that of a rabbit and what is right for them. Morality doesn't have to be universal for it to be objective.
Just as moral relativism can act as a universal subjective and a non-universal subjective, why can't the same be applied to objective morality? There could be relative-objective moral facts too. I will soon prove that to you when i dunk on you in our debate.
ok, i look forward too it! good luck in your current debate.
Well I only have one padawan so...
JFC. Morality is purely subjective. There is no debate here. It is the proverbial waste of time.
I’ll be happy to debate you on the same subject matter after this one
If he believes he can assert morality as being less likely to be objective, he is in for a reality check if he debates me.
Which one is it? I'll argue with them about metaethics if they win their current debate.
Objection. Even if you are a master, you can only take one padawan at a time according to the most basic SW knowledge.
The beginning of my young padawans career.