The Instigator
Paradigm_Lost
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Moral Relativism is philosophically weak

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,300 times Debate No: 3774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (20)

 

Paradigm_Lost

Pro

Absolute and moral relativity seem to be a big topic here lately. Since I never seem to log in when anyone else starts a debate concerning this topic, I suppose making my own will have to suffice.

A moral relativist is someone who applies relative ethics to a moral problem, and someone who denies that any thing has the ability to arbitrate what morals are indeed moral on an absolute level. Why is this? The answer is fairly simple. It is because that by believing something does arbitrate morality, it then would have to presuppose that something beyond human convention is the Judge. For many people that assumes God, something they are not comfortable with concluding.

The inescapable conclusion that an avowed relativist would have to surmise is that if there are no moral absolutes, then morality ultimately boils down to mere opinion. Think of it this way: One culture alleges that you cannot starve your own people because it is so tragically immoral, where another culture may allege that to interfere in the affairs of another our culture is immoral. Who then is right? Is there an actual right answer to the question? Herein lies the crux of the situation. Each side is moralizing, appealing to the other in hopes that they will acquiesce to some sort of UNIVERSAL standard that we should all know and adhere to without rebuttal.

Moral absolutism is not without its faults, however, which makes moral relativism appealing on a surface level for answering strictly practical questions about right and wrong. For instance, I cannot empirically prove WHICH morals are absolute anymore than I can prove, empirically, the existence or non-existence of God. This, for an absolutist, is its conundrum. Since this is the case, I will not attempt to "prove" which morals are absolute, rather, I will point out their philosophical necessity. In doing so, it will greatly imply that there is a final source and a framework by which morality comes to us. But make no mistake that it will not prove it.

I will now give my opponent a simple question. How this individual answers the question will reveal the strength or weakness of their argument. The question is:

"Is murder wrong?"

If it is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If it is not wrong, at least on an absolute level, then please feel free to answer that question as well. From here we can segue in to the finer details of the debate.
Geekis_Khan

Con

I wasn't going to accept this because I just debated a similar topic, but the way you set this one up is interesting, so I really wanted to debate this. Should be fun.

Now, for the answer to your question:

There is no true or provable justification for murder being right or wrong. It is simply an action. No deontological or consequential basis can make it right or wrong.

And since this is only three rounds, I want to take this time to address your claim about philosophical weakness. Philosophy is a tool that we use to seek truth. If the truth is that there are no moral absolutes, then moral relativism (or even nihilism) is, in fact, the strongest philosophy, as it recognizes the truth that there are no moral absolutes.

Your turn. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Paradigm_Lost

Pro

"THERE IS NO TRUE OR PROVABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR MURDER BEING RIGHT OR WRONG."

So if I took a baby, lets say its your baby, for the sake of the argument, and I butchered that baby before your eyes, is there any justification for saying that what I have done was wrong?

See, something has to give here. You can't deny the fact that, intrinsically, nearly 98.5% of the human population would say it is wrong. Where then does such a unanimous and intrinsic understanding come from? People who say that it is wrong, just not absolutely wrong, then cannot explain why so many people would find it so morally reprehensible. Where did such a consensus come from that crosses over many different cultures and ages?

Some would attribute it to social norms, as a person learns what is reprehensible. Of course, it still does nothing to explain why people were to have ever thought of it as such, but for now, let us defer this question. If the butchering a baby were due to social norms, then it would stand to reason that a child under the age of, say, 5 years old, is not affected by such societal influences. But surely if we were to show that young child another child being butchered, the appropriate horror would come over their face, thus corroborating just how innate it is within us.

"PHILOSOPHY IS A TOOL THAT WE USE TO SEEK TRUTH. IF THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES, THEN MORAL RELATIVISM (OR EVEN NIHILISM) IS, IN FACT, THE STRONGEST PHILOSOPHY."

There are a number of inconsistencies here. Allow me to debunk each one individually to further solidify my premise that moral relativism is indeed philosophically weak.

You say that philosophy is a tool to seek truth. I couldn't agree more. However, you speak of moral relativism in such a way that would tacitly indicate that it is truth. Truth then is absolute. If truth is absolute, then how can moral relativism follow suit? Moral relativism is not true for the simple fact that it does not claim any truth. That's the whole point, in fact! What may be morally good and just to me, may be morally unjust to you. And according to you, neither can be right or wrong -- just two opposing opinions vying for consensus.

Secondly, you smuggle in nihilism as a way to also show that truth can be uncovered using it. This is a complete contradiction, as the very definition of nihilism is that truth claims cannot be determined whatsoever, which is absolutely damning to your debate!

Thirdly, you state that the moral relativity is the actually the strongest philosophy. But your reasoning is an attempt to take the safest position possible, which is tantamount to, "I don't know," and then claiming strength in its complete and total ambiguity. Not withstanding the contradictions alone in illustrating perfectly the very weakness I speak of, you then assert that the weakness is actually its strength.

How can you reconcile the irreconcilable?

Next question: Would it be considered barbarism to throw stones at someone because of the dictates of someone's religion (superstition)?

Answering the question will invariably lead you in to an impasse. If you say that it is not wrong, then by what justification do you even have to refer to it as wrong, whether by relative or absolute terms? Isn't interesting that when we explain morality, it is always done so under the terms of it being true on an absolute level. If I say that it is right to stone someone to death, those are my morals and I would be entitled to them. If you say that it is not wrong, then I shall stone to my hearts content.

Mustn't one have a baseline of morality in order to establish their own? By what mechanism does this come?

Lets say you visit Singapore. You are unaware that it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk (which is an actual law in Singapore, btw). The punishment for such an infraction is being caned with a four foot bamboo cane, three inches in diameter.

Now, lets say that this judge is deciding to up the ante a bit in order to set an example. He is sick and tired of Westerner's coming to his country and spitting on their soil. But Westerner's just keep on doing it. So, for future deterrence, the punishment is now being caned to death.

You are horrified and feel that the punishment is grossly improportionate to the crime. You plead that it is immoral, according to your customs and traditions, to be so severely punished for something you do all the time back home. And it all would seem so silly to you had your very life not been on the line over, what you perceive, to be such a spurious crime.

But at the same time, you just so happen to be an activist, which is why you were in Singapore in the first place. You are there in defense of the Singaporean government against the American government who are currently appealing the Singaporean courts to spare the lives of one of their servicemen who has been sentenced for a similar crime.

You were there because you hate how America always uses its foreign policies in such a way that sickens you. You can't stand how they stick their nose in everyone else's business, as if they were the self-assigned Big Brother to the rest of the world.

Now, I just gave you about 18 extenuating circumstances to try and dissect for you to contemplate your guilt or innocence.

Are you going to stand by laurels or are you going to hypocritically cave in to spare your own life?

This, is moral relativism -- an unlivable dead end.

There are not only easy answers, but impossible one's. What is the meaning of justice without an absolute truth? There is no right or wrong. There is no point of reference. You can't trust other people's judgments, much less, your own thoughts. You are a vessel tossed about in a sea of disorder.

You desperately wanted life to be capricious so that you could deal with the cold, hard realities of the world. And so you see yourself as water-- fluid, undulating-- never staying in the same spot, never able to identify itself with it surroundings. You are neither here nor there. You are indistinguishable in the same way you view life.

You are a body of water inside an ocean of water, climbing a staircase of water, into a sky made of water.

And at some point you ask, "Is this what life is? Is this all that it is? Do my own feelings betray me? The very thing I wanted to believe about life.... That its nothing."

Unfortunately, this is the bleak reality that you believe exists, simply by default. Because without truth, there is nothing.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Did you use enough metaphors?

"So if I took a baby, lets say its your baby, for the sake of the argument, and I butchered that baby before your eyes, is there any justification for saying that what I have done was wrong?"

I might not like it, but I can not justify it as right or wrong.

"See, something has to give here. You can't deny the fact that, intrinsically, nearly 98.5% of the human population would say it is wrong. Where then does such a unanimous and intrinsic understanding come from? People who say that it is wrong, just not absolutely wrong, then cannot explain why so many people would find it so morally reprehensible. Where did such a consensus come from that crosses over many different cultures and ages?"

I can explain it: contractualism. we, as human, don't want harm to come to ourselves. We make agreements not to harm each other. So, when we see these agreements being violated, when we see such harm coming to another individual, it sets off a signal in our mind, because we don't want that to happen to us. It's a kinship type thing. But me not wanting to see harm come to someone else doesn't make that harm wrong or right.

"If the butchering a baby were due to social norms, then it would stand to reason that a child under the age of, say, 5 years old, is not affected by such societal influences. But surely if we were to show that young child another child being butchered, the appropriate horror would come over their face, thus corroborating just how innate it is within us."

No, they can still have a preference against harm just by being human. However, there is no reason why his preference is right or wrong. Furthermore, there are several documented examples of children who have been raised in the wild and have no grasp of morality. there are children who were kept in a dark room almost from birth and have no grasp of morality. the only innate trait is a negative reaction to harm, because we don't want ourselves harmed.

"You say that philosophy is a tool to seek truth. I couldn't agree more. However, you speak of moral relativism in such a way that would tacitly indicate that it is truth. Truth then is absolute. If truth is absolute, then how can moral relativism follow suit? Moral relativism is not true for the simple fact that it does not claim any truth. That's the whole point, in fact! What may be morally good and just to me, may be morally unjust to you. And according to you, neither can be right or wrong -- just two opposing opinions vying for consensus."

Philosophy seeks truth. Moral relativism recognizes the truth that there is no MORAL absolute. You're trying to blur the line between moral truths and other truths. The only truth about morality is that there are no absolutes.

"Secondly, you smuggle in nihilism as a way to also show that truth can be uncovered using it. This is a complete contradiction, as the very definition of nihilism is that truth claims cannot be determined whatsoever, which is absolutely damning to your debate!"

Fine, then drop the nihilism claim. It would take up too many characters to flow through with the argument, and I don't need it to win, anyway.

"Thirdly, you state that the moral relativity is the actually the strongest philosophy. But your reasoning is an attempt to take the safest position possible, which is tantamount to, "I don't know," and then claiming strength in its complete and total ambiguity. Not withstanding the contradictions alone in illustrating perfectly the very weakness I speak of, you then assert that the weakness is actually its strength."

Once again, philosophy aims to find truth. You agreed to this. It is not to find function. It is not to make society run. It is to uncover the truth lying beneath the society. Moral relativism is the only philosophy that recognizes the truth that there are no moral absolutes. So, while it may be weak in resolving conflicts, it is very strong on a PHILOSOPHICAL level. Since that is what we are debating, that is all that matters.

There is nothing wrong or right about stoning. You try to get me into a scenario where I pick one of the two options, but obviously I don't believe in either. Please, actually debate the topic, rather than giving hypothetical examples that people are likely to find reprehensible.

Prove that these scenarios are objectively and absolutely reprehensible, and you will have disproven the claim to truth of moral relativism, and I will concede the debate. But they are serving no purpose as far as proving why moral relativism is philosophically weak. So long as there is nothing making these actions objectively and absolutely reprehensible, moral relativism is philosophically strong by recognizing the truth that there are no moral absolutes.

Now, looking at your Singapore example: this proves moral relativism. This proves the plurality of moral ideas and how you can't prove any of them, thus roving moral relativism's PHILOSOPHICAL strength. The only weakness you can possibly show is a weakness in functioning, which is not an obligation of philosophy.

But even if you want to accept that it is an obligation, there is no reason why a moral relativist can't have their own set of morals. The only difference is, a moral relativist recognizes that there is no objective or absolute reasoning that makes their morality superior to anybody else's, thus strengthening moral relativism on a philosophical level,a s moral relativists can both work out a functioning set of morality for themselves while still recognizing truth. Moreover, moral relativists, in recognizing that there is no right or wrong, can choose the most practical action in any given scenario without any moral doubt, thus strengthening moral relativism's ability to function. A Christian or a Humanist that is bound by unjustified morality cannot always choose the most practical option. (No offense meant to Christians or Humanists at all, by the way.)

Now, after about two hundred unnecessary metaphors that just reiterated the same point, you finally state, "Because without truth, there is nothing." That doesn't do anything to prove your case for two reasons. One: moral relativism recognizes the truth of there being no moral absolutes. So, since we have truth, we obviously don't have nothing (sorry for the double negative). Two: even if we get to the point where there is nothing, this does not make moral relativism philosophically weak. All it does is prove that there is nothing. This does not make philosophical weakness.

In summary:

-My opponent has not proven why moral relativism is PHILOSOPHICALLY weak. If philosophy seeks the truth, then moral relativism recognizes a truth that other philosophies do not, make it very philosophically strong.

-The examples that he gives prove the plurality of different moral standards, thus proving moral relativism's philosophical strength.

-All of his attacks on moral relativism were based on it's weakness in functioning. Not only is this totally unrelated to moral relativism being philosophically strong or weak, he is completely wrong. as I showed you, a moral relativist can have one of the most function systems of morality that there is, since he is not bound by unjustified obligations.

Please, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Paradigm_Lost

Pro

"I MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT I CAN NOT JUSTIFY IT AS RIGHT OR WRONG."

And thus you can't escape the inescapable conclusion of right and wrong that ALL of us know. You can attempt to rationalize away the face of morality, but you can't escape from it on a deep level of emotion.

The mere fact that we have such concept of right or wrong could only be understood ultimately in absolute terms, for how else could we have established a baseline for what is or isn't morally reprehensible in relative terms. Think about it. Its so blindingly obvious, just on the intellectual level alone, that one who would describe themselves as pragmatic is doing so under a false illusion.

"we, as human, don't want harm to come to ourselves. We make agreements not to harm each other."

But you simply defer the ultimate question and attempt to hide it elsewhere. You no sooner answer the question of why harm is inextricably bad. You use terms like "violated" in order to give us some understanding, presumably unaware that every time you attempt to explain morality in relative terms, you unwittingly use them in absolute terms.

Its a sleight of hand maneuver. You take away the absolute with the left hand, and then give it back with the right under the guise of relativism.

"there is no reason why his preference is right or wrong."

There's no reason why someone's preference to either butchering babies or not butchering babies? This isn't a "preference," Geekis. We aren't talking about going to an ice cream shop and deciding what flavor you would like. Its an absurd and horribly deluded notion that these are mere contrivances of the flippant. The evidence abounds with the moral law within, all of which can be testified by the human conscience. The fact that it is so pervasive from culture to culture is damning evidence that just such a law exists.

Indeed it the very foundation of laws. All laws stem from a moral framework. There is always a "moral" to the law. These aren't merely utilitarian.

But let me ask you a question: If morals are relative, and there exists no absolute framework from morals, then all of morality boils down to opinion, or preference, as you say. Is it right to subject a murderer to OUR opinions when we imprison him? Is it right to esteem one opinion over another? Obviously the murderer feels justified for having murdered. And if there is no actual basis for why one preference is absolute, then shouldn't all opinions be just as valid as another? How is it right to foist our morals on the murderer?

"Moral relativism recognizes the truth that there is no MORAL absolute. You're trying to blur the line between moral truths and other truths. The only truth about morality is that there are no absolutes."

What is this based off of, anecdotal evidence? Some people subvert the law, therefore there is no law in actuality? Its counter-intuitive and counter-productive, as the very purpose of the law is to protect a moral in absolute terms.

"There is nothing wrong or right about stoning. You try to get me into a scenario where I pick one of the two options, but obviously I don't believe in either. Please, actually debate the topic, rather than giving hypothetical examples that people are likely to find reprehensible."

Which is completely consistent with the debate. I'm simply putting this convoluted theory to the test. If none of them are wrong, then what is it inside of you that stirs with anger for either one? Think it through.

"Prove that these scenarios are objectively and absolutely reprehensible, and you will have disproven the claim to truth of moral relativism, and I will concede the debate."

Prove that they aren't, and you will do the same. Here's the problem: Such things cannot be empirically proven like some Newtonian law of nature. Its like the age old debate about God. Neither side can empirically prove the existence or non-existence of God. At most, they can employ reason for why their claim is true and the other is false. Its the same in a courtroom. It is by the gathering of evidence that either frees or condemns a man along with persuasive arguments of the defense and prosecution. But often we cannot know empirically all the details of what transpired.

But then, its very much like thoughts, isn't it? Can you prove to me, empirically that you have "thoughts." You would likely say, before I let the cat out of the bag, of course I can! You might likely point to brain activity under an MRI. That in no way proves the existence of thoughts empirically. Indeed the best qualifier for how we know we have thoughts first comes from WITHIN. The fact that you have thoughts is the first evidence of their existence. Other people give telltale signs so that you deduce the existence of thoughts as being axiomatic. Well, it is also so with morality. We can't sit here and empirically prove such things. But we all know what the answer is in the deepest recesses of the mind. To deny that is a pernicious lie.

"looking at your Singapore example: this proves moral relativism. This proves the plurality of moral ideas and how you can't prove any of them, thus roving moral relativism's PHILOSOPHICAL strength."

What it proved was that it cannot function in any society, which, consequently, is the ONLY purpose of morality to a relativist. Again, was it wrong to cain the person for the crime? Was it right to let them go? What reasons would we have for basing it off of anything else, if it were not understood in absolute terms?

"a moral relativist recognizes that there is no objective or absolute reasoning that makes their morality superior to anybody else's"

And yet the judge and juries deliberation is esteemed higher than the alleged criminal. Obviously there is justification, and justice cries out for it!

"moral relativism recognizes the truth of there being no moral absolutes. So, since we have truth, we obviously don't have nothing"

That makes no sense, as it is a non-sequitur. You have done nothing to support your case. In fact, what relativism does is hides in a sea of ambiguity and then says, 'aha!, see I have shown you." That isn't even remotely compelling.

The newest theme in order to explain what we know to be true, the moral law within us, is to explain it by heredity -- what the Nazi's referred to as "blood and soil."

Truth has been subverted by an agnosticism. What do I mean? You may not be aware of it, but your argument is tantamount to the pride of not knowing about a moral absolute, that way you can't be culpable.

What you have presented is a "social contract," that the only reason why morals exist is because of practical reasons. Of course you are unaware that it still begs the question, and you have not, and indeed cannot, answer the question with any semblance of honesty. Its just a constant deferral.

When a ship goes in to high seas, there are 3 questions it must answer: 1. Why it is out to sea in the first place. 2. How to keep from sinking. 3. How to keep from colliding with other ships. The first question answers essential ethics. The second answer individual ethics -- how to keep from self-destruction. The third asks social ethics -- how to keep from the imposition of others. But unless you really know why you're out there in the first place, keeping from bumping in to others is merely a secondary notion.

In closing, moral relativity is attractive to people who do not want to answer the first question, and indeed may not know how. The answer, however, is so incredibly simple.

Philosophically there must be moral absolutes, even if we cannot definitively determine WHICH morals are absolute. There is no basis for having contrived any morals if there was not first a baseline. And you can't have one without the other. Reason alone proves this.
Geekis_Khan

Con

"And thus you can't escape the inescapable conclusion of right and wrong that ALL of us know. You can attempt to rationalize away the face of morality, but you can't escape from it on a deep level of emotion. "

I said I can't justify it as right or wrong. This does not lead to any inescapable "face of morality". In fact, quite the contrary, since it is not justifieid either way.

"Its so blindingly obvious, just on the intellectual level alone, that one who would describe themselves as pragmatic is doing so under a false illusion."

No. It's not from absolutist terms. It's from preferential terms. That is what is so blindingly obvious and what you are ignoring. We set up systems of morality because we have preferences for things to work out a certain way. There is nothing absolute about these systems.

"But you simply defer the ultimate question and attempt to hide it elsewhere. You no sooner answer the question of why harm is inextricably bad. You use terms like "violated" in order to give us some understanding, presumably unaware that every time you attempt to explain morality in relative terms, you unwittingly use them in absolute terms."

I never said that harm was bad. I said that humans generally ddon't want harm. Once again, it's a matter of preferences, not a matter of absolutes. And "violated" isn't an absolutist term. We set up systems that are relative. When these RELATIVE systems are violated, these terms are no longer absolute.

"Its a sleight of hand maneuver. You take away the absolute with the left hand, and then give it back with the right under the guise of relativism."

And you're building a straw man.

"There's no reason why someone's preference to either butchering babies or not butchering babies? This isn't a "preference," Geekis. We aren't talking about going to an ice cream shop and deciding what flavor you would like. Its an absurd and horribly deluded notion that these are mere contrivances of the flippant. The evidence abounds with the moral law within, all of which can be testified by the human conscience. The fact that it is so pervasive from culture to culture is damning evidence that just such a law exists."

Why isn't it just going to an ice cream shop and picking a flavor? Our systems of morality (which are all RELATIVE) come from our preferences. They reflect what we want. And just because a lot of people view something a certain way does not make it absolutely correct. What's popular isn't always right. What's right isn't always popular. (Of coruse, nothing is right or wrong, anyway. But you get the point. It's a logical fallacy to say that everyone agrees on something, so it therefore must be right.)

"Indeed it the very foundation of laws. All laws stem from a moral framework. There is always a "moral" to the law. These aren't merely utilitarian."

No. Laws stem from self-preservation. They come from a desire for stability. You never answered the claim about the social contracdt. This is where a system of laws comes into play because we want protection, whether protection is right or wrong.

"ut let me ask you a question: If morals are relative, and there exists no absolute framework from morals, then all of morality boils down to opinion, or preference, as you say. Is it right to subject a murderer to OUR opinions when we imprison him? Is it right to esteem one opinion over another? Obviously the murderer feels justified for having murdered. And if there is no actual basis for why one preference is absolute, then shouldn't all opinions be just as valid as another? How is it right to foist our morals on the murderer?"

Why do you ask me questions when you know how I'll answer? It is neither right nor wrong. You can give no absolute evidence for either side. IT is not right. It is not wrong. It is only pragmatic or non-pragmatic.

"What is this based off of, anecdotal evidence? Some people subvert the law, therefore there is no law in actuality? Its counter-intuitive and counter-productive, as the very purpose of the law is to protect a moral in absolute terms."

First of all, your attack made no sense. Second, laws come from protecting people's preferences, not some moral absolute.

"Which is completely consistent with the debate. I'm simply putting this convoluted theory to the test. If none of them are wrong, then what is it inside of you that stirs with anger for either one? Think it through."

Your personal preference stirs the anger. But what about the person who believes in stoning? Their anger isn't stirred. Why? Because of their personal preference. There is no innate moral absolute guiding everyone to the same conclsion. If that was true, we'd all be at the same conclusion.

"Prove that they aren't, and you will do the same. Here's the problem: Such things cannot be empirically proven like some Newtonian law of nature. Its like the age old debate about God. Neither side can empirically prove the existence or non-existence of God."

Of course I can't disprove the existence of moral absolutes completely. But Russel's Teapot. The burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic. It is up to you to prove moral absolutes. Otherwise, you default to the negative.

"Well, it is also so with morality. We can't sit here and empirically prove such things. But we all know what the answer is in the deepest recesses of the mind. To deny that is a pernicious lie."

You're claiming that we all know what is morally right. But if that was true, then there wouldn't be such a plurality of moral systems. Stoning would either be right or wrong. There would be no division line between groups of people.

AS for your next paragraph:
QUIT ASKING ME THE SAME QUESTIONS. IT IS NEITHER RIGHT NOR WRONG.

"And yet the judge and juries deliberation is esteemed higher than the alleged criminal. Obviously there is justification, and justice cries out for it!"

How is there obviously justification? THERE IS NONE! JUSTICE DOES NOT CRY OUT FOR ANYTHING AS JUSTICE DOES NOT OBJECTIELY EXIST!

"That makes no sense, as it is a non-sequitur. You have done nothing to support your case. In fact, what relativism does is hides in a sea of ambiguity and then says, 'aha!, see I have shown you." That isn't even remotely compelling."

I'm not even going to point out the irony in you saying that my argument was a non-sequitur.

"Truth has been subverted by an agnosticism. What do I mean? You may not be aware of it, but your argument is tantamount to the pride of not knowing about a moral absolute, that way you can't be culpable."

Once again, you can't prove that these absolutes actually exist,a nd the bruden of proof does not lie on the negative.

"Of course you are unaware that it still begs the question, and you have not, and indeed cannot, answer the question with any semblance of honesty. Its just a constant deferral."

What question? I'm not avoiding anything.

And as for your ship metaphor: I've answered the first question. Several times. It comes form preferences and pragmatism. That is the baseline.

Furthermore, my opponent hsas not answered the claim to moral relativism's astounding strength in that a moral relativist is not bound by unjustified obligations. He can make the most pragmatic decision in every scenario, giving moral relativism not only astound philosophical strength, but also astounding applicable strength.

My opponent keeps claiming that theese moral absolutes exist, and that it is innate with all of us. Yet if this was true, there would not be a plurality of moral systems. If this was true, children raised isolated from society would have understandin of these moral concepts. But they don't. This is an idea that has gone unanswered by my opponent thourhgout the debate.

I have answered all of his arguments. He has worked around or completely ignored several of mine. Clearly, the CON has won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
Moral subjectivity destroys the idea or morality. this is a fact, not an opinion.

the purpose of morality is to tell you what you should do in any given situation.

If morals are subjective, no action, in any situation is ever right or wrong. It is neither. Because all actions are neither right nor wrong, there is no way to tell what you ought to do and the entire purpose of ethics is destroyed.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
I agree with you there. I am a lover of philosophy as well. I commend you for bringing some new and interesting topics to the board.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 9 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
I find it a fascinating subject that seems neglected in most circles. I just really like philosophy, I guess. I wish there were more of an emphasis of it on the forum.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Do you have a specific interest in perpetually defending absolutism, moral or otherwise, Paradigm?
You need not answer if you do not wish.

Britt
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JBpixie 9 years ago
JBpixie
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 9 years ago
LaSalle
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by geekiskhanisgod 9 years ago
geekiskhanisgod
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Aietius 9 years ago
Aietius
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Paradigm_LostGeekis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30