The Instigator
angryduck
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SteveEvans
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Is morality constant?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SteveEvans
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 48350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

angryduck

Con

The Idea that morality is a constant and measurable thing is a nonsense.
SteveEvans

Pro

My argument's reliability shall rely upon sources. This shall be a serious debate. I am very esteemed.

Morality shall be defined as the distinction between what action is right and what action is wrong, and constant shall be defined as a state that doesn't change.

Presentation

Morality's Independence

Morality is independent. We humans may have introduced morality, but we don't construct the idea. We don't update it when we realize that this action is actually immoral, etc. It is US trying to figure out what is really right.

So, from that, we can come to the conclusion that morality is constant.
Debate Round No. 1
angryduck

Con

Thank you for responding.
Morality reflects the current fashions of the day. What is good or bad ,like the fashion in hats , can change over time.
A good example of that might be attitudes to Gay rights.Also Christian communities in the southern states of the USA were once moraly O.K with slavery.
The temporary wisdom of hindsight makes us dubious custodians of what is wrong and what is right
SteveEvans

Pro

Rebuttals

"Morality reflects the current fashions of the day. What is good or bad ,like the fashion in hats , can change over time."

Morality is the distinction between good and bad, but not by fashion, or at least how we define it nowadays. You should've defined it in the FIRST ROUND yourself! But then, why are you making examples of morality as if you reffering to it as good and bad acts.

And if that was what you were reffering to, that's just opinion.

"A good example of that might be attitudes to Gay rights.Also Christian communities in the southern states of the USA were once moraly O.K with slavery."

True. However, read the argument I (And I exaggerate that "I") presented and try to comprehend; We may update our perspective on what's good and what's bad. However, morality remains as is. We may confuse an action as moral but it's actually immoral. It's US trying to figure out.

My argument remains uncontested.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
angryduck

Con

"Or at least as we define it now" ,you say . Thank you , you just agreed with my argument.
SteveEvans

Pro

Rebuttals

""Or at least as we define it now" ,you say . Thank you , you just agreed with my argument."

Did you even bother reading the entirety of the sentence? That sentence implied that morality isn't usually defined as the distinction between good and bad IN TERMS OF FASHION GOOD AND BAD! And that you should have defined morality in the 1st round.

Conclusion

CONDUCT: Tied. We both conducted ourselves well.

S&G: Very minor errors from my opponent. For example:

"were once moraly O.K with slavery."

Not only was "morally" mispelled, but an unnecessary dot is in between the "O" and the "K" in "Ok".

This, though, doesn't have to be deducted from my opponent.

ARGUMENTS: This one, I leave up to the voters. I formatted my arguments, but its credibility and rationality depends on the voters. After all, why would we present such arguments if we don't believe that our arguments are logical and is based on historical facts, etc?

SOURCES: Tied; Neither cited sources. However, I didn't need citation, because I didn't derive my argument from any. My argument is based on logic, while my opponent made a couple of historical claims without sources.

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
"Not only was "morally" mispelled..." - Pro, last round

You can't script humour better than this...
Posted by angryduck 3 years ago
angryduck
Concept rejected...
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
I wonder why you're having a hard time understanding the concept......lol
Posted by angryduck 3 years ago
angryduck
its unlikely you or anyone else can claim exclusive rights to define the difference. Thanks for debating but the ambiguity of life and language will render your rigid Interpretations irrelevant.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
There really aren't any differing interpretations on moral subjectivity and moral objectivity. I'm interested to know what interpretations you've received.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
No the definitions aren't subjective. There's literally no room for interpretation. Subjective means it is relative to individual or societal interpretation. That's something these definitions are not. Objective means it's always applicable. It's a universal law or universally true or universally applicable. Something these definitions are.
Posted by angryduck 3 years ago
angryduck
thanks , Ive never understood the difference. Still don't to be honest. Interpretations differ about what is subjective and what is objective.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Subjective means it's relative to the individual or subject to changing based on society or time. Objective means it's always the same and applies to everyone no matter what personal opinions there are.
Posted by angryduck 3 years ago
angryduck
No , Ive never understould the difference between subjective and objective. Blurred to me.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
are you referring to it as objective?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
angryduckSteveEvansTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con misspelled okay and morality. Nothing else is worthy of point distribution.