Instigator / Pro
23
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic

There is no objective morality

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
9
Sources points
10
10
Spelling and grammar points
5
5
Conduct points
2
5

With 5 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

GuitarSlinger
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
29
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Forfeited
Con
Wrong.  There is objective morality.  Otherwise, you'd have no ground to stand on to accuse your opponent of being "wrong".  Without objective morality (right/wrong), you think what is right/wrong, and I think what is right/wrong....we make our morality.  You have no ground to accuse me of being wrong.  
 
The fact that you participate in a debate site, arguing your position against opposing positions , implies that you live your life as if there is objective morality.  Otherwise, you would have to believe that you are right, AND that your opponent is right, because, after all, if morality is not objective, that means it’s subjective, so the other person in their mind is right, too, regardless of what you believe (each person or group determines what is right/wrong).
 
Next time someone cuts in front of you in line at the movies, grocery store, Starbucks, whatever, how would you respond?  Would you respond “Oh, go right ahead….you are simply doing what you think is right.”  Or would you respond that it isn’t fair, essentially appealing to some standard  (dare I say, “objective) of right/wrong that is outside of you and the other person?
 
Next time your employer, refuses to pay you for your labor, go ahead and say “Yes, you can do that….you are now doing what you think/believe is right.” 

Round 2
Pro
There is objective morality.  Otherwise, you'd have no ground to stand on to accuse your opponent of being "wrong".
There is a difference between morally right and wrong and factually right and wrong. Morality is subjective, facts are not.

Next time someone cuts in front of you in line at the movies, grocery store, Starbucks, whatever, how would you respond?  Would you respond “Oh, go right ahead….you are simply doing what you think is right.”  Or would you respond that it isn’t fair, essentially appealing to some standard  (dare I say, “objective) of right/wrong that is outside of you and the other person?
I would murder them and rape their family. If you tell me that is wrong, then I would murder you and rape your family as well. Just because there is no objective morality doesn't mean I can't feel wronged by someone, and murdering people and raping their family is just as morally valid a response as any other. 
(I would not actually murder anyone or rape anyone, but you can't tell me it's objectively or inherently wrong. If you think you can then I invite you to scientifically prove it to me.)

Next time your employer, refuses to pay you for your labor, go ahead and say “Yes, you can do that….you are now doing what you think/believe is right.”  
There is a difference between a statement like "2+2=4" and a claim that something is morally right or wrong. Morality is a matter of opinion. Now excuse me while I eat my employers children as punishment for not paying me.
Con
Fair enough.  However, "feeling wronged" by someone and actually "being wronged" by someone are two very different things.  Just because you think it’s wrong, doesn't mean it's wrong.  And just because you think something is right, doesn't mean it's right. 

To the person who cuts in front of you, they think it’s right.  So, the question remains—who is actually right and wrong?  Cuz here’s the rub, you both can’t be right.  That’s not logically possible.  You can’t have two contradicting things and have them both be true.

If you truly believed, in your heart of hearts, that morality was subjective, then you could not look the other person in the eye and sya that they are wrong-- because in a subjective world, the other person is right in their own mind.  

Clever to throw science in this.  I'm assuming you use "science" as your basis?  If so, then wouldn't it also be fair for me to counter to you "Prove scientifically that morality is subjective"?

Round 3
Pro
"feeling wronged" by someone and actually "being wronged" by someone are two very different things.
There is only "feeling wronged". In objective reality, when the cheeta bites the gazelle in the jugular it is because the cheeta is fast and hungry. In the subjective reality of morality, the cheeta and the gazelle would argue back and forth,
"but I have a right to life mr. cheeta" 
"but so do I and I am a carnivore who must eat you to live mr. gazelle"

Nature (i.e objective reality)  clearly doesn't give a shit about morality, the one who gets their way could just as easily be "good" or "evil" and the only consequences that inherently come with being "evil" are imposed by society.

If you truly believed, in your heart of hearts, that morality was subjective, then you could not look the other person in the eye and sya that they are wrong-- because in a subjective world, the other person is right in their own mind.  
That is not true. Even though morality is subjective, a person can still feel wronged and there still can be socially acceptable standards of behaviour based on preventing people from lying, cheating, and harming others. Even though morality is subjective, it is not logical or productive for society to let people go around doing things that harm others.

"Prove scientifically that morality is subjective"?
 Humans made it up to establish what is socially acceptable and what is not, nature does not care about morality, and ideas of what is moral vary widely from culture to culture and from person to person.
Con
So then....instead of a gazelle and a cheetah, let's say it's Bill and you.

Bill wants to kill you.  He thinks it's ok.
You do not want to be killed.  You think it's not ok.

Is it right for Bill to kill you?

If you say "No", then I have to ask why.
            - If your answer is "Because I don't thnk it's right.", then I would say tough-- your idea of right/wrong doesn't agree with Bill's idea of right and wrong.  Bill is right in his own mind, so he should be allowed to do what he wants, correct?

            - If your answer is "Because we have laws that state you can't kill".  Then I would say "Nope-- you can't do that.  When you refer to a law, you are now using an objective standard to measure behavior against.   When morality is subjective, you can't use an objective standard like a law."