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

Moral Objectivism is superior to Moral Skepticism as a moral theory.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,674 times Debate No: 5344
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




1. Moral Skepticism:
First, the definition: "the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt."
Basically, for the context of this debate, I am going to argue that Skepticism is a blanket term that covers the following ideologies; nihilism (an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth), existentialism (a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created by the universe or a deity), or any such philosophies. Obviously, we deal with these philosophies only on their impact on morality (i.e. what is moral/immoral, and how we decide/determine morality).
2. Objectivism
Again, the version: "The position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion."
I am going to posit that moral objectivists could be atheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic; and also that their position may come from divinity, reason, or a combination of both.
3. superior
Once again with "1. or higher grade or quality. 2. showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others."
In the context of the resolution, I define "superior" to mean, "more supported by logic, more supported by evidence, and more coherent as a system of morality."

I will refrain from presenting my contentions until the next round, giving my opponent opportunity to present any opposing or supplementary definitions.


I agree fully with your definitions. I feel that the definitions given are fair and will gladly debate on given terms.

I will wait for the GOV to give his argument
Debate Round No. 1


Righty-o, then, on to my support of objectivism.
Anybody who is familiar with Ayn Rand will recognize the following argument as basically hers.

Claim 1: Existence Exists.
This claim asserts that something other than one's own consciousness exists. If it did not, consciousness itself would be an impossibility. That this principle is self-evident (its truth is given in perceptual experience) and is such that any attempt to refute it implicitly assumes it. This axiom entails metaphysical realism, the view that things are what they are independently of the mental states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual people. Objectivism rejects the view that one could, in principle, be conscious exclusively and entirely of one's own consciousness. Objectivism holds that consciousness is not possible without the prior existence of something, external to consciousness, for consciousness to be conscious of; to be aware is to be aware of something.

Claim 2: To be is to be something; a thing is what it is, and is nothing else.
Objectivism regards identity as the essence of existence: "Existence is Identity." The corollary of this is the Law of Identity, which states that everything that exists has an identity, and that whatever has an identity is existent. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific identity, or nature, which consists of its attributes and the values of those attributes.
Objectivism holds that all attributes (properties and characteristics) that constitute something's identity have specific values, so that each exists in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means specificity. Therefore, according to Objectivism, everything that exists has a specific, finite nature. Something with a specific, finite nature cannot both have and not have the same attribute; and an attribute of a something cannot both have and not have a single, specific value. Therefore, everything in reality is non-contradictory; though contradictions may be imagined in the mind, "a contradiction cannot be achieved within reality."

Claim 3: Something can exist without anything being conscious of it.
In addressing the fundamental relationship between consciousness and existence, Objectivism holds that existence takes primacy over consciousness; that existence exists independently of consciousness, and that therefore the essential function of consciousness is the grasp of existence.
In this view, consciousness is fundamentally dependent upon existence. In contrast, there is the broad position that consciousness takes primacy over existence: that existence is in some sense fundamentally dependent upon consciousness; that consciousness can be prior to existence and that it somehow creates or shapes existence. Insofar as they have a specific identity, Objectivism holds that minds, thoughts, desires, intentions and so on do exist, but only as consequences of consciousness, which cannot come into existence without the prior existence of external objects to be conscious of.
Because consciousness cannot precede existence, the universe as a whole cannot be the creation of a consciousness, nor itself be entirely mental.

Claim 4: Since existence exists, and everything that exists is itself and nothing else, and something can exist without anything being conscious of it, it follows that if "right" and "wrong" exist, they exist in a finite, concrete manner.
The logic works as follows:
1. existence exists
2. everything that exists is itself and is not anything else
3. therefore, everything that exists has, at any given moment, a finite character that can be quantified and described
4. if everything has a finite nature, then nothing can simultaneously be and not be something.
5. everything is either right, or it is wrong.
6. therefore, everything must be right or wrong.


bsufan101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


robert.fischer forfeited this round.


I go to your last thing you said in your second round speech. It says and I quote "therefore, everything must be right or wrong". Now I ask you, who says weather something is right or wrong. I give to you this, in or politics today we see issues being debated constantly. We right now are debating an issue it happens on a daily bases. So your 4th claim number 6 is wrong. What one person might see wrong to somebody else it is right. So any given issue can not just be right or wrong. You can not say that everything is right or wrong. Because not everything is right or wrong. To one person yes, but to everybody no. Also in your claim 1 you say that "consciousness is not possible without the prior existence of something" and that objectivity rejects the fact that one could be consciousness on his own. The only argument I can give is what about the first people who walked this earth. They had no past experiences of the earth, and yet they were conscious. Also there are people who are mentally ill who do not "See" people around them, they live in there own world. Not grasping the people around them.
Now you can not say that that person is not living. They do have a consciousness, they are there.
On your claim 2 you state that every body is identical to itself. Yes people do have traits however you are not totally your own. Take for example some of the religious groups out there. They are slammed with the same thing every day of there life, no real opportunity to be yourself. Also think of a child they are not themselves, they are still acting like the way there parents teach them.

And to say there are no contradictions in reality is just far fetched. Every day we see contradictions, in politics, in law, in our every day lives there are contradictions. Even dealing with other people the way I believe will contradict with the way you believe and really every person in this world you and I will contradict with all of them in some way.

And please define your meaning of Existence in claim 3.
Debate Round No. 3


robert.fischer forfeited this round.


Ok let's get right to the point. The only reason for my forfeit the round I did was because something happened when I was trying to post and it did not post. My opponent agreed to forfeit his next round.
Now that those things are clear let me get into this debate at hand.

Move all of my arguments through to this round. My opponent has clearly felt that he lost the debate and that is why he did not post. I asked him to define a term and he could not even notify me by message or on this debate. It is clear that my opponent had weaknesses in his argumentation, I found them and he realizes that.

This match should be given to me because of my opponent not fighting back after my speech.

Again flow all of my argument down.

The main thing is my opponent did not fight back on my argument. I did when he had posted. Meaning my opponent has forfeited this debate.

Good debate I hope to meet again.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Lol, Ragnar.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Cheese. Right or wrong?

No Puck, don't answer, I wanna see how carefully Pro read Rand :D.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
"5. everything is either right, or it is wrong."

You fail to define "right" or "wrong", or the terms application to identities, which leaves that premise floundering.

5 and 6 together are circular.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsufan101 8 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07