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
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

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.

-->
@BDPTheGreat

well that's a lovely mindset to have, good luck! you'll gain something from this debate, win or lose.

-->
@Ehyeh

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

-->
@BDPTheGreat

Interesting attempt to solve the problem, although i cant see ossa being dumbstruck by that argument, to say the least.

-->
@ossa_997

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.

-->
@Ehyeh

> 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" ?

-->
@3RU7AL

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?

-->
@Ehyeh

what is your personally preferred definition of "intelligence" ?

-->
@3RU7AL

I said intelligent design. Its very easy to say there was no intelligence in the creation of the big bang.

-->
@Ehyeh

> In this discussion god simply means a creator.

so, functionally indistinguishable from "the big bang"

how does this inform your idea of "objective morality" ?

-->
@3RU7AL

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?

-->
@Ehyeh

please share your personally preferred definition of "god"

-->
@3RU7AL

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?

-->
@Ehyeh

> 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.

-->
@3RU7AL

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?

-->
@Ehyeh

> 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"

-->
@3RU7AL

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?

-->
@3RU7AL

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.

-->
@Ehyeh

morality is exactly like language (shaped by geography, time, and culture)

which language do you believe is the "objectively correct" language ?

-->
@3RU7AL

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.

-->
@Ehyeh

> Morality doesn't have to be universal for it to be objective.

please explain

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2555-science-is-not-objective

-->
@ossa_997

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.

-->
@ossa_997

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.

-->
@ossa_997

ok, i look forward too it! good luck in your current debate.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Well I only have one padawan so...

JFC. Morality is purely subjective. There is no debate here. It is the proverbial waste of time.

-->
@Ehyeh

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.

-->
@Bones

Which one is it? I'll argue with them about metaethics if they win their current debate.

-->
@Bones

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.