Instigator / Pro
1492
rating
332
debates
40.66%
won
Topic
#5389

Assigning objective truths as moral values is valid over arguing morality is objective.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

People argue whether morality is subjective or objective . The resolution is just to operate by objective truths.

The morality that is touted as objective is from a subjective assessment.

If you believe that holding objective truths to use as a basis of a compass is another way of saying you hold to objective morality as a stance, come forth to prove that. It is not .

Questions on the topic, send a message.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Basically this topic for my position is to throw away or invalidate all other positions holding morality as objective or subjective.

The "moral compass" or agency used by anyone is sufficiently valid based upon the facts, truths presented to us by the universe, natural laws,  reality.

I want the opposing side to ask as many questions as possible to understand me.

Once we know there is no confusion, we may not have any debate.

Some argue that morality, the ideas of right and wrong are subjective while others argue that the system operating by it is objective.

There is a distinction between morality and universal truths.

One individual has stated the following:

"Sounds like objective morality "

This was a response to my statement:

The "moral compass" or agency used by anyone is sufficiently valid based upon the facts, truths presented to us by the universe, natural laws, reality.

Sounds like and what it is can be two different things. The agency can be called  a "moral compass" and the individual that made the response did exactly that in the words of "objective morality" see .

My follow up response was to distinguish what I'm talking about which was the following:

"Is liquid water being wet objective morality?"

I didn't get a response back to this because typically silence is evidence of conceding/REFUTATION.

Unless the opposing side can prove that liquid water being wet is objectively wrong or right, it is by fundamental nature a fact presented via natural law of the universe.

This is one example of a universal truth we can operate by and is valid to do so sufficiently without the idea/system of ethics, morality or thinking of as right or wrong.

Thus leaving no point to argue over morality or right and wrong behaviors being objectively true, universally true or relatively, personally true.

Is it wrong or immoral not to drink water?

It depends on what the argument a person may use.

In the meantime, the fact of drinking water for what it does stands while the arguing is going on over true or false points.

So anyone one of us can move or operate based on the fact alone in drinking water. We don't have to be swayed by anything else other than that .


Con
#2
Forfeited
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet