Is morality objective?
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
"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.
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.
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!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
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. -__-
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.