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.
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