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.
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.
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.
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.
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.