Morality Is Objective
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Round 1: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals.
Round 2: Rebuttals of Round 1 Statements
Round 3: Rebuttals of Round 2 Statements.
Round 4: Interrogation. Questions Only about any part of the topic.
Round 5: Answering Round 4 Questions and then closing statements.
Con must accept this format in order to debate this topic.
Definition of morality1a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson ended his lecture with a trite moralityb : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson "Aesop's Fables" is famous as a morality.2a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct the basic law which an adequate morality ought to state— Marjorie Greneb moralities plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct we were all brought up on one of these moralities — Psychiatry3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct admitted the expediency of the law but questioned its morality4 : moral conduct : virtue morality today involves a responsible relationship toward the laws of the natural world— P. B. Sears
Morality cannot be objective because it is a social construct and stems from subjective human feelings and social norms.
Definition of morality1a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson ended his lecture with a trite moralityb : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson "Aesop's Fables" is famous as a morality.2a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct the basic law which an adequate morality ought to state— Marjorie Greneb moralities plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct we were all brought up on one of these moralities — Psychiatry3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct admitted the expediency of the law but questioned its morality4 : moral conduct : virtue morality today involves a responsible relationship toward the laws of the natural world— P. B. Sears
Biology gives us cues that do lots of things. They tell us when to eat, sleep, make waste, etc. These cues also tell us when something feel moral or immoral.
While people have differing opinions about how we interpret these cues, the cues themselves are objective.
When people speak of morality, they use slightly different definitions. But the two main ones are A) somebody's opinion or B) a general attitude of society.
This is why we can find examples of morals that are almost universal in every society.
More amazing still, evolution also explains why some people believe different things via gene mutation.
There are no biological morality cues. It is important to know the difference between morality, ethics and compassion. Compassion is the closest thing to having direct biological cues, but they are not universal. Ethics is the philosophy of what is right and wrong in a humane-specific sense and morality (the most arbitrary and least objective of all three) is not necessarily rooted in being humane or compassionate but also deals with things which are entirely opinion/social construct based such as whether or not being gay is a sin. Things such as empathy and the capacity to form moral values are rooted in human biology but morality in and of itself is not inherent to any organism, and even if it was that doesn't make it objective because there are plenty of organisms for which that is not the case.
The cues are not "objective" other than that they objectively exist, they not only have different interpretations but there are also different cues for different people
Morality is both of those things. Your moral values are both shaped by your own dispositions and the values imprinted on you by culture and experience. If morality is universal and objective why do ideas of what is moral differ so much between cultures and individuals? It seems like an entirely subjective and socially constructed phenomena to me.
You can find entirely opposite morals just as often. Also, it is objective that if I stab you it will hurt you, and since humans are biologically equipped with empathy they often are opposed to needlessly hurting others. That doesn't mean that people tending to incorporate the "no stabbing rule" into their moral systems suddenly makes it an objective fact that it's "wrong" to stab people. The laws of physics don't care if you stab people, plenty of other organisms don't care either, in what way do human values and feelings of empathy make something a fact?
Even if that was true (which you haven't provided any proof of) that would not prove anything other than that the gene mutations objectively exist, not that the values and beliefs derived from them are objectively true and valid. What if there was a species who's gene mutations tell them it is objectively moral to eat humans?
When someone gets murdered in front of me. I get a negative cue from my body regardless of my opinion. That's not a social construct.
This does not speak to the source of the morality.
Some people might make a false moral code (like in a holy book, for instance) and they could "claim" it's morality, but it's not. If I wrote a holy book that said killing is morally acceptable, it would not change the fact that I still get a negative cue from my body when I witness a murder.
1: How can a social construct based on the inter-subjective feelings and notions of a certain type of organism be an objective truth?
2: If everyone believes in a certain religion, does that make that religion objectively true?
3: If our genes have adapted through natural selection to believe in a flying booger sausage with googly eyes that shoots fireballs out of it's backside and this is an optimal survival strategy does that mean it is real?
1. You do realize that universal and objective are two different things right?
2. You claim that the place we derive our morality is not the same as our morality, if it's the source of our morality and that source is objective, then how is morality also not objective?
3. You say that source of morality is different than the social constructs of morality, if one is objective and the other is a social construct, then how is the second one morality and how is the first one not?
4. Do you think evolution is accurate?
5. Since gene mutations are random, wouldn't it then follow that if morality came from gene mutations, that they would not be universal?
6. If natural selection favors survival behaviors, wouldn't it then follow that if morality came from gene mutations, that natural selection would make the best gene mutations for morality the most popular in our species?
7. Since morality is not universal and the majority of people have similar morality, doesn't it then follow that this seems to fit in with evolution?
8. Since words are merely defined by usage and we don't have a unified definition, wouldn't it then follow that we should define morality based off what all the definitions seem to point to?
9. Since that definition seems to point toward harm/benefit and evolution seems to also favor this behavior, wouldn't it then follow that evolution can account for this behavior?
10. If evolution can account for this behavior and there is no other things that can account for this behavior, wouldn't it then follow that evolution seems to be the most likely candidate for our moral?
Neither side really defines or outlines what is meant by objective, so I am largely forced to frame both arguments against my interpretation of what Morality being objective means.
Cons argument is that morality is inherently subjective - because it is different for different people, multiple individuals could judge different scenarios differently, and it is largely a social construct. Con argues that as there is no universally accepted moral code, and as morality is more subjective and arbitrary than ethics.
Con argues that the source of the cues upon which moral and ethical decisions are notionally driven are not the same as the constructed moral framework that governs morality. Con goes further to specifically argue that many in built biological cues are programmed by social and cultural constraints, rendering even those implicitly subjective.
Pros argument, on the other hand primarily revolves around the idea of biological cues that drive morality being objective readings.
Pro points out these are both evolutionary in origin and objective by nature.
Pro concedes that con is correct, and argues mostly that the cues that drive morality objectively exist.
This appears to be largely semantic driven, made even more irksome as nobody defines the nature of what objective morality actually means.
Out of these two, pro appears to mostly be asserting his position, and without sources I have to rely on whether his arguments appear intuitively correct.
Con casts doubt on the idea that any two individuals would necessarily agree on the cues they receive for a given act they witness - and casts doubt on the link between Morality as framework and the cues that drive it. The former is most important as it more intuitively explains to me why morality can’t be agreed.
Pros argument that you can’t simply invent morality and claim its moral, and the argument that everyone receives moral cues seems against basic intuition - as this appears to be what innumerable religious groups appears to do. Are all these groups all denying their own cues for morality? Or are they simply training different cues. I don’t know, by simply asserting the former is not enough.
Due to this, and lack of any objective criteria that I can measure or interpret - as pro does not provide much in the way of specifics of examples - con manages fo establish the subjectivity of morality: thus arguments to con.
Pro fails to ever explain (and literally concedes, using this as the fundamental core of the Pro case) how socially constructed, 'groupthink' morals can revolve around an objective source. Even the need to survive (but many morals are about sacrificing survival) is not objective.
Con plays pure defence and uses a reliable online dictionary, Merriam-Webster, to make it crystal clear from Round 1 (and onward) that morality is based on statements, opinions or literary concepts portrayed from (and only from) our own opinions and thoughts on the matter. Pro literally concedes this and says that they're based on our urge to survive as a species against the others (so why is it morally okay to kill others to defend your subjectively preferred life-forms?) Con excellently plays pure defence the entire debate, leaving Pro incapable of upholding BoP.
you sure you are not refering to absolute morality?
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others, and even if it does in the end promote such a good.
lol
Yes, I read and agree to the terms of service and privacy policy.
you read the format I assume?
maybe. We'll see. I don't mind tackling the unpopular side.
Sheesh. Good luck. I got Sparrow winning this won.
you and me would ultimately agree on morality besides maybe particularism and the source of the objectivity if that makes sense
So I'm not sure if you could really take Con side unless you took some weird skeptical argument because you can't argue for subjective morals
Well, When I say Objective morality, I mean it's objective in that situation because I believe in Moral Particularism. But that wouldn't really apply to this debate because I still think the situation itself is "absolutely moral or immoral" assuming we know all of the moral variables.
For
Are you arguing for or against objective morality? I am in favor of objective morality (there is absolute right and absolute wrong) but I wasn't sure if you are in favor of this as well, since I saw you debating moral particularism