The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is morality objective?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 34012
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




There is no evidence for objective morality. Most ideas of what is "right" or "wrong" are vague unless derived from religious text. Unless a specific religion is proved right, no moral objective for which all people ought to follow is existent.


Debate Round No. 1


Can you offer a rebuttal?


Sure. Sorry, I'm used to the first round being acceptance. Let's get started.

" Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

My objective morality definition:
"Principles concerning what and wrong that are infallible, completely true, and cannot change."

So, if a moral code claims to be truth, infallible, and unchangeable, it is a claim of objective morality. Now listen to what my opponent said:

" no moral objective for which all people ought to follow is existent."

That is a claim of absolute morality. The morality is that everyone should follow what they deem right. Whatever that is is moral. So, in my opponent's claiming there is no objective morality, he made a claim of absolute morality!

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent made a fallacy.

"Whatever that is is moral."

he made that assumption when it was clear my premises do not follow.
what they deem right isn't necessarily right.
it is what they deem right and that is all.
morality exists only in the minds of men


justin.graves forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


holyscoop forfeited this round.


Guess this means we're even. Anywho... let's get back to basic logic.

Let me take a moment and clarify the meaning of "objective." In this context, it means "absolute." Something that is always right.

My opponent made an absolute statement: "There is no evidence for objective morality."

That is an absolute, objective statement.

So, I was simply pointing out that, if my opponent's statement is logically impossible.

1. My opponent claimed that absolute morality is absolutely impossible, meaning nothing is moral or immoral

2. Yet that is an absolute statement about morality.

3. So not matter what, absolute/objective morality exists.

Thank you, and good night.
Debate Round No. 4


I think the source of our miscommunication is our definition of absolute or objective morality. I never claimed that objective or absolute truth does not exist, because that statement itself would have to be absolutely true... I claimed that objective morality is non-existent.


Let's try this one... more... time!

Statement: There is no absolute/objective morality.

Yet that is a absolute moral statement (i.e. There absolutely is no morality!).

So by stating that there is no absolute/objective morality...

You are stating an absolute/objective morality!

This has nothing to do with absolute truth. However, it does use the same logic, simply on a slightly more complicated scale.

Remember that Con has the Burden of Proof!

Thank you and Good Night!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said Con used absolute truth, and if there is absolute truth then there is absolute morality. Despite Pro acting like it's common sense and repeating it several times, I see no actual argumentative value. But on the other hand, Con didn't even offer any arguments. Both forfeited. No sources given. 100% ground tie. -__-