Instigator / Con
3
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#4466

Morality is Objective

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
3
0

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Critical-Tim
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Description

As we begin this debate on the objectivity of morality, I want to express my appreciation for my opponent's willingness to engage in a productive discussion and share their understanding of the world. While we may hold different views, my intention is not to win or lose, but rather to gain a better understanding of this complex topic.

I also want to express my respect to my opponent, and their perspectives. Just as a three-dimensional shape is formed by many two-dimensional images, our individual subjective perspectives are fragments of a larger and more intricate reality. It is only by fitting them together that we can hope to comprehend the full complexity of the world we inhabit.

In this debate, I will argue that morality is not objective, while my opponent will argue the opposite. However, regardless of the outcome, my hope is that we will both leave with a deeper understanding of this topic.

I believe that it is important to approach this debate with an open mind, to filter out biases and focus on the facts, and to engage in calm and rational thinking. It is also important to resist the temptation to only believe what we want, and to be willing to consider and explore ideas that may challenge our existing beliefs.

Ultimately, my goal is to engage in a respectful and productive debate that contributes to our collective understanding of the world.

-->
@Tarik

On the contrary, our morals are chosen for us by our conscience and not something we choose. In essence, the correlation is the same. Only a small number of individuals don't have a conscience, and those are the ones who have no remorse. Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.

-->
@Tarik

Then in the following comment I responded.
In regard to your statement: Societies’ failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.

Although I understand that you are suggesting that people in the past were ignorant about the moral implications of slavery, you are still referring to moral implications of slavery that are based on today's moral standards, which is moral relativism, as it's based on modern-day moral standards. Additionally, I said commented, moral relativism posits that moral principles are not inherent or objective, but rather they are relative to an individual's culture and history. I argue that this is a more accurate way to view morality, as evidenced by the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods. For example, in some cultures, it is considered morally acceptable to eat certain types of meat, such as dogs or horses, while in other cultures, this is considered morally wrong. Similarly, in some cultures, polygamy is considered morally acceptable, while in others, it is considered morally wrong. These differences in moral values and principles highlight the subjective nature of morality and suggest that there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people and situations. Moreover, historical changes in moral values and principles also suggest that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors. For example, in the United States, slavery was once considered morally acceptable, but over time, the moral values of society shifted, and slavery became recognized as morally wrong. Similarly, attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted over time, from being considered morally wrong to being more widely accepted. In conclusion, the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods suggests that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is relative to an individual's culture and history. The examples of cultural differences in moral values, such as the acceptance of eating certain types of meat or polygamy, and historical changes in moral values, such as the recognition of slavery as morally wrong, demonstrate that morality is not universal or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors.

Then you referenced your comment: For those of you that believe morality is subjective, a big reason I have a hard time grasping the concept is choice, assuming that it’s true, when comparing it to other unequivocally subjective things there’s a difference and that’s choice, take for example our tastes in food, for those of you this applies to we don’t choose to like unhealthy foods more than healthy foods we just do, or even our tastes in sound we don’t choose to like singer A’s voice more than singer B’s voice we just do. But that doesn’t apply to morality, we choose what code of conduct we want to follow and if we see another following a different one we can dispute theirs in comparison to ours with the hopes of persuading them. Unless you can give examples of other subjective things that are choice I think it’s reasonable to question why is this only the case here and not in any other case and I also think it’s reasonable to have doubt based on that observation. Last note usually when one doesn’t know what a word means (morality) they defer to the dictionary and because they don’t know they approach the definition with an open objective mind, and if you do that that’s also operating under the assumption that the word itself is objective because if you operate under the assumption that it’s subjective your approaching the word with preconceived notions and you wouldn’t be doing that if you don’t know what a word means. But what about subjective words like opinion? I would argue that the only reason we can comprehend what an opinion is is because we ourselves have them, so probably the best way to define it is by examples like the ones I used earlier food and sound, but what if your deaf, blind, and have no sense of taste or smell? Then maybe in that case you can’t comprehend an opinion because you probably won’t have any yourself.

Now that we are all caught up, I will respond from here.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations.”

You’re starting a circle with this response, so how about I just refer you back to my response and perhaps you can go at this from a different angle https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9238/posts/389380

-->
@Tarik

One can present the most coherent answer to a question that matches reality by being critically-minded and challenging their own ideas, bringing up new questions that potentially disprove them, and evolving the idea to fit the new questions. The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations. To know if one has a firm grasp of the idea, they must present it as the most coherent with reality and lead to the least amount of confusion. When a question leads to confusion, it fails to answer certain aspects, whereas a straightforward and clear question is the most coherent with reality. This is explained in detail in my forum "Developing an Evolutionary Mindset."

-->
@Critical-Tim

“However, if an individual has a firm grasp of what constitutes a moral, it would not be considered fallacious to them.”

I guess that begs the question, how does one know they have a firm grasp?

-->
@Tarik

Explanation of the word fallacious:
"Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive. It's a mistake or error in logic that can make an argument appear to be valid or convincing, even though it is not. A fallacy can take many forms, such as making an unsupported assumption, using irrelevant evidence, presenting a false dichotomy, or attacking a person's character instead of their argument. Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional, but in either case, they undermine the credibility and persuasiveness of the argument. It is important to recognize fallacious arguments and avoid using them in order to engage in productive and effective discussions and debates.

Your statement that "If morals do not exist inherently in reality, then it's fallacious, plain and simple" is not entirely accurate. The term "fallacious" refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. Therefore, if one's understanding of what constitutes a moral is lacking, it could be seen as fallacious. However, if an individual has a firm grasp of what constitutes a moral, it would not be considered fallacious to them. Morals are not inherently fallacious; it depends on whether the individual grasps them. In summary, the concept of fallaciousness depends on the person's grasp of morals, rather than on morals themselves.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality.”

If it does not exist inherently in reality then it’s fallacious, plain and simple.

-->
@Tarik

To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality. This is demonstrated by how morals fluctuate over time with societal norms. There is no foundation for your argument as there is no evidence that morality exists outside of human opinions. The only way to support inherent morals is through religion and the belief that the supernatural has set morals for us. Therefore, those who believe in a supernatural being can believe in objective morals, but those who do not believe in the supernatural cannot believe in morals as there is no other evidence for them except through supernatural reasoning. I approach this from an agnostic atheist perspective, acknowledging that it is impossible to prove the existence of something beyond the realm of reality, such as a supernatural entity. However, I also believe that it is impossible to disprove its existence. My argument boils down to the fact that I choose not to believe in things that lack proof or disproof, such as fairies, ghosts, and other unproven or unprovable things. Hence, I find it logical to believe that there is no supernatural being, and that is why I assert that there is no evidence for inherent morals.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it.”

That’s not an argument though.

-->
@Tarik

An emotional decision can still be reasonable. For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it. It's not logical to claim that morals are inherently fallacious just because they are based on emotions and not inherent.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“While logical justification can reinforce an emotional judgment or moral, the moral itself is not logical but rather emotionally driven.”

By that “logic” moral arguments are fallacious by nature.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Did you perhaps think that objective morals referred to inherent morals? Even if so, morals can't be inherent because they are emotional and not clearly recognizable by many individuals without consistent influence from societal norms. Slavery was recognized as morally acceptable for thousands of years, so to claim that others would recognize it as wrong if it were wrong would not be correct based on modern-day moral standards. I'm just trying to reinvigorate the debate to further understand your intentions. Additionally, it may be that you're trying to present an idea that is not fully reflected in the words you're using to describe it. Or perhaps you think that if morals are not inherent, then they have no value, which is definitely not the case. You often hear people in gangs say, "without the code, we have nothing." This is a powerful statement because it demonstrates that morality or value is not inherently seen but rather a form of agreement or bond that is stronger than anything else a person holds physically. I want to make sure I understand your point clearly and reach a mutual understanding. It is my understanding, if a debate is purely based on logical and objective factors, then there shouldn't be any disagreement, as any disagreement would be based on a subjective factor. However, I also recognize that there is most probably logic and knowledge in your idea, but it's not being conveyed with the correct words to express yourself clearly. Therefore, I would like to gain a better understanding of your perspective.

-->
@Tarik

Morals are formed under emotions, which makes them subjective by nature. However, if a moral is discussed without emotions, it would be considered a principle. While logical justification can reinforce an emotional judgment or moral, the moral itself is not logical but rather emotionally driven.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Additionally, I argued that morals are rooted in emotion, and that an individual without emotions would have no morals but possibly have principles.”

Is it sole emotion or do you believe there’s logical justification for morality?

-->
@Tarik

I did not intend for us to go off on a tangent, but somehow we did. Now that I have created a forum for us to continue our discussion without losing track, let's return to the topic of morals.

In the previous discussion on morals, I believe you mentioned that there are some inherent morals that we can access, although you're not sure how exactly. In round two definitions and at the end of round three, I was discussing the differences between objective and subjective to clarify any miscommunication. Additionally, I argued that morals are rooted in emotion, and that an individual without emotions would have no morals but possibly have principles.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“I believe that understanding this topic is crucial, but I recognize that this debate commentary may not be the appropriate space to delve deeper.”

It was never my intention to stray this far off topic, originally we were discussing morality.

-->
@Tarik

I believe that understanding this topic is crucial, but I recognize that this debate commentary may not be the appropriate space to delve deeper. Therefore, I have created a forum for those who are interested.
Here is the link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9341-developing-an-evolutionary-mindset

-->
@Critical-Tim

“I see your point, but I interpret 'understanding' as being aware of something, rather than necessarily knowing it.”

And what’s the difference between being aware and knowing?

-->
@Tarik

I see your point, but I interpret 'understanding' as being aware of something, rather than necessarily knowing it. And yes, perhaps we've discussed this tangent enough. Let us discuss the dimensionality of morals.

I have recently defined objectivity and subjectivty in round 2.

-->
@Critical-Tim

"A person should act as though their best understanding is known but acknowledge it's only the best interpretation of the world they have currently".

That’s literally what understanding is, knowing. Anyway do you think we’ve stressed this tangent long enough?

-->
@Tarik

I still say, "A person should act as though their best understanding is known but acknowledge it's only the best interpretation of the world they have currently".
- I removed the additional details as they appeared to divert your attention from the main point.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“It is possible for someone to think they know something, but it turns out to be incorrect.”

Then they don’t know it, plain and simple.

-->
@Tarik

"The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know."

It is possible for someone to think they know something, but it turns out to be incorrect. This can happen due to a variety of reasons, such as misinformation, misinterpretation of information, faulty memory, or cognitive biases. It is important to be open to the possibility of being wrong and to continuously question and evaluate our knowledge and beliefs in order to arrive at the most accurate understanding of the world.

In summary, I was claiming that a person can act as though something is a known, but they should acknowledge its only the best interpretation of the world they have currently.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis.”

The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know.

-->
@Tarik

I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis. Initially, a person may analyze the world around them and formulate theories on how it operates. Such theories may suffice for their childhood, but as they transition into adulthood, new challenges and experiences arise, testing and challenging their ideas. Consequently, their understanding of the world must evolve to a more robust and adequate form.

Thus, it is possible for someone to assert that they do not know anything for certain because their ideas are continuously evolving. They may spend time analyzing and making assumptions based on probability while acknowledging that what they hold as true is merely the best option to go off for the present.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know”

Do you fail to notice the cognitive dissonance between the former and the latter half of this? Not everything is a never ending mystery, life is much simpler when there’s closure.

-->
@Tarik

I apologize for misunderstanding your question. When you said, "That doesn't answer the question," I thought I had misunderstood the question entirely. However, I now realize that I did not express my idea clearly enough. I will attempt to summarize it here, but if it remains unclear, I am willing to initiate a forum for the collaborative evolution of understanding.

Although we cannot fully comprehend the multifaceted nature of the world, we create simplified versions of reality known as concepts. However, if we accept our current knowledge as definite or certain, our understanding will cease to grow. It is like a student who attends school but believes they already understand everything and never seeks to learn new ideas or theories. To avoid stagnation in our mental growth, we must acknowledge that we still do not fully comprehend the world, and what we know may not be sufficient in the future. If an idea is no longer sufficient in the future, we must be prepared to seek new solutions or answers and adopt them as our new understanding. Without an open mind and the acknowledgment that nothing we know is certain, we cannot be aware of the potential for a better understanding.

To explicitly answer this statement "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?":
Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know in order to refine their understanding and gain a closer approximation of how the world truly operates. This continuous process of critique enables us to adapt our mindset to new and changing climates, thereby remaining relevant to the ever-evolving world and culture around us.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“I based my response on the assumption that this was the question.”

It was, but that response just stresses the importance of critical thinking not how one obtains valuable information.

-->
@Tarik

You said: "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?"

I based my response on the assumption that this was the question. If I misunderstood you, it would be more helpful to reply with a more comprehensive response to help me understand the intentions you were attempting to convey, rather than just saying that I didn't answer the question.

-->
@Critical-Tim

That doesn’t answer the question.

-->
@Tarik

You stated: "How does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.

While I understand your point, it's still important to think critically and creativity, as they are essential for progress in collective human knowledge. If we only stick to old philosophies and ideas, we limit ourselves from progress and we stagnate. Simply repeating what we've been told is what makes us mindless followers, not adventurous pioneers. On the other hand, if we think creatively and challenge existing ideas, while acknowledging that nothing is certain, we can become the leaders of humanities collective knowledge and solve problems no one has ever solved. The key is to act on our best understanding until we gain an even better one. So, while uncertainty may seem daunting, it's important to embrace it and use it as a catalyst for growth and progress. In conclusion, acknowledge nothing is certain, recognize your understanding is merely the best interpretation with your current knowledge, and that with time more knowledge will be gained and your understanding will be clearer and more accurate, but you'll never reach perfect understanding.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.”

Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.

-->
@Tarik
@YouFound_Lxam

In regard to Tarik:
I'm interested in your perspective on how objective morals exist within religion and how to access them, although you mentioned not knowing the correct interpretation or how to find it. It's important to distinguish between accepting knowledge from others and thinking critically for oneself. Rather than simply repeating information, it's valuable to combine personal understanding with information gathered from others to form a more comprehensive conclusion. Philosophy is different from statistics in that it can be evaluated based on its own logic and merits, rather than relying solely on sources for validation. Progress in human intellect is achieved through the combination of old and new knowledge to form collective knowledge, which is more valuable than any individual source of information. I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.”

I believe it is accessible, unfortunately I don’t know what the correct interpretation is. I’m simply making my claims based on commonly accepted ideas.

-->
@Tarik
@YouFound_Lxam

I would additionally appreciate YouFound_Lxam's perspective on this subject, as he is a participant of this debate.

In regard to Tarik's response:
Please correct me if I am mistaken, as I am attempting to comprehend your point of view. From what I gather, your assertion is that there exists an objective moral standard, but it is one that is tied to religion and based on God's beliefs and principles. However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.

-->
@Critical-Tim

“One could suggest that society's vote determines which religious text is ethical, but that is just another form of collective subjectivity.”

I guess that depends on whether or not that vote aligns with God’s.

-->
@Tarik

I had earlier stated: "If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations."

Then you responded: "No, a person’s moral worth is based on whether or not they go to heaven."

While I was referring to morals from a non-religious perspective, I am aware of the Religious Morality you described. Although that perspective may have some merit, it raises the question of why one religion is considered valid over others and who has the authority to judge that. You may argue that it's God's judgment, so let's posit that idea as correct for the sake of debate. But then, how would we know what God judges without a person to tell us, and how can we be sure which human is the real prophet? Some may argue that the Bible is the true reference, but other religions have their own sacred texts. This brings us back to the question of who judges which reference is true. One could suggest that society's vote determines which religious text is ethical, but that is just another form of collective subjectivity. It's worth noting that I am not approaching this from a religious perspective; I cannot speak to the proof or existence of heaven.