Instigator / Pro
Points: 23

There is no objective morality

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
GuitarSlinger
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
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
Points: 29
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
Published:
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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
"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.
Published:
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."




Added:
*same goes*
#17
Added:
So goes for my pick on DDO
#16
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
No, it's a Jpeg for a chess variant that I coded for local use. I did it the lazy way without rule enforcement.
#15
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Yep CD=create debate. RM used to be called Prodigee on CD and he was the supreme troll of the site until I came along.
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
An elephant?
Was that one of the ones DA gave you to pick?
I think CD is createdebate or something.
#13
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Yeah, unless I missed something, lol.
#12
Added:
--> @Type1
DDO
#11
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
Are you from CD?
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
You made an account that quickly?
#9
Added:
I see some familiar faces on here. I feel comfy already.
#8
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
"Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?"
I was putting into the context of what created the universe. There are multiple explanations and the currently accepted one is the Big Bang.
About the rape part. If the person finds rape okay then by his standards okay but that doesn't mean there isn't another standard like the law which will jail A.
#7
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
so say someone rapes someone.
Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
"that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?"
Yes. If this was used in the real world you do know it would be false dichotomy right?
"Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity."
You can't prove objectivity we use our senses which are subjective to perceive the world. A is correct.
"yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it."
An objective standard through a subjective lens. Objectivity is more than that. It is saying we can know something outside our senses but we can't.
"See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."
Yes it is based on the standard someone follows.
"Who is right?"
Depends on their standards. If they follow the same standard that is logically consistent then one is wrong.
#5
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
Let me ask you this, if there are two possibilities for a situation-- either A or B...not other possibility, only A and B are possible...and you show (reluctant to say "prove) that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?
Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity.
Your hypothetical scenario basically proves my point. You are saying in your hypothetical that you can't be subjective because with opposing views, one has to be wrong. In order to call the "other" wrong, yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it. You are saying the person made that claim is wrong. By saying that, you are appealing to an objective standard that is "outside" the two individuals. You are saying "See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."
To put another way, suppose to guys are arguing about how long 12" is.
Joe thinks 12" is about the length of a banana
Bob thinks 12" is about the length of a motorcycle
Who is right? Who is wrong? How would you determine (or better yet, how should THEY determine) how long 12" is really? THey should use not what they "think" is correct, but rather some objective standard that is outside of themselves, such as a ruler or some other thing that is known to be 12".
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
"The ground he's standing on is shaky ground at best."
Objectivity is shaky because then you have to prove your axioms to be true. You can't take them for granted if you do then it might as well be subjective.
What are you axioms?
"then that means that he is right....But it also means that I'm right as well, since we make our own morality in a subjective morality world."
Depends on the morality. If you both have the same version of morality then you both can't be right if you are making contradictory claims. Lets say you both think it is moral to bring the most well-being to the most people. If one says I am not willing to do a wrong thing in order to have more wellbeing to a greater number of people then the person who made that claim if they are following utilitarianism is wrong.
#3
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con barely pulled this off for me. He defined his terms and definitions better and I think that his scenario comparisons were better as well.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
It seems that con was having trouble with the concept of what's factually correct or incorrect, and what's morally correct or incorrect. Pro drove that point home in round two by stating "there is a difference between morally right and wrong and factually right and wrong. Morality is subjective, facts are not." Con did nothing to address this point. This was a crucial point that Pro made, and Con didn't even attempt to refute it.
Nobody used any sources, so I didn't award anybody with the sources point. There were only a few grammatical errors, and none of them were all that distracting. Pro made some egregious remarks regarding murder and rape. I wouldn't be to sad if Pro were kicked off the site for misconduct, but I'm not here to judge who should or shouldn't be allowed on this site, I'm only here to judge who had the better conduct in this debate, which goes to Con. Outside of the unwelcome comments by Pro, both sides were cordial, and didn't resort to character assassination, which I guess is held in a high standard on this site. Meh!!!
Good job by both participants.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Reliable Sources: Neither used any sources so therefore it is a tie.
Spelling and Grammar: Both had relatively the same grammar. Overall between both sides, it was legible.
Conduct: Neither Forfeited and neither resorted to insults, therefore my vote is a tie.
Convincing Arguments: Both had aright arguments and I was flip flopping my position during the debate, however one statement that Con stated absolutely proves that morality has to be objective.
The quote in question was " 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."
- This quote pretty much proves that morality has to be objective, otherwise morality would contradict itself. Pro's response to this fact was this,
" Even though morality is subjective, it is not logical or productive for society to let people go around doing things that harm others."
- This statement directly contradicts pro's entire argument. Right here Pro is literally stating that harming other people is objectively wrong. Which of course contradicts his entire argument based around subjective morality.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to Con because while Pro was more polite than his usual self, the forfeiting of Round 1 (that is the most significant Round where it does become slightly bad Conduct as you give your opponent less to work with, intentionally almost), the entire rape scenario and wording of his Round 2 'joke' was truly vile and not what formal debating should have in it.
Pro explains that not only does morality have no objective source possible but that even the rational-seeming subjective elements of morality like the law or the ‘truly right’ and ‘truly wrong’ that Con was trying to say exist beyond what you think is right or wrong, do not even exist. Con struggled because Con cannot win if Pro doesn’t severely misstep. Con tries to tell Pro ‘but the one cutting in front of you in the queue thinks it’s true’ to prove that an actually wrong thing can subjectively be right. Pro says that this is because it really is right in their subjective moral code and is entitled to be so in an objective sense of ‘entitled to be’. Pro explains that truly the rightness of the act is up to every person to ascertain for themselves based on emotions and rationalising around those emotional preferences.
Con loses.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pros arguments revolve around two points:
- That morality and moral behaviour is simply a feeling and is not objective.
- Pro argues that the social and social norms constructs around morality exist to prevent harm to society.
Pro drops this Gem:
“Even though morality is subjective, a person can still feel wronged and there still can be socially acceptable standards”
Pro nails the response - by pointing out that a subjective morality that can be justified objectively through the law - is not subjective. That destroys pros primary defence for morality being subjective - his explanation of why we all seem to agree on most moral decisions.
Arguments to con.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.