The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Heirio
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Morality is NOT subjective

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 86640
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Pro

Stupid Taoists!
Heirio

Con

I accept.
Taoism also had nothing to do with me coming to my conclusion.

Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

My argument that morality is subjective is to say that these principles differ from person to person and that there is no morality which is set in stone.

Since you challenged me, I think it appropriate that you made the first statement.

If I make a claim, I have to back it up.
If you make a claim, you have to back it up.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Morality is self evident, I win.
Heirio

Con

Objective morality is self evident? Then you must be able to prove it easily. Yet you did not. If you wish to carry on debating logically, I suggest you provide evidence for your claims.

My evidence for subjective morality is my opinion on prostitution and yours. On your profile, you say it isn't okay. On mine however, I say it is okay. This shows how our moralities differ. If morality were objective, it would be clear to us which one of us would be right and which would be wrong. Since the latter doesn't want to be in the wrong, they'd conform to whoever is right. However, this is not so, we both see our own judgements as moral, but think of the others as immoral.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

"Objective morality is self evident? Then you must be able to prove it easily. Yet you did not. If you wish to carry on debating logically, I suggest you provide evidence for your claims."

Alright, alright, but you believe in universal rights correct?

"My evidence for subjective morality is my opinion on prostitution and yours. On your profile, you say it isn't okay. On mine however, I say it is okay. This shows how our moralities differ. If morality were objective, it would be clear to us which one of us would be right and which would be wrong. Since the latter doesn't want to be in the wrong, they'd conform to whoever is right. However, this is not so, we both see our own judgements as moral, but think of the others as immoral."

Morality can be simplified by the 7 Noahide laws, which are as follows if I remember correctly:

1). Don't deny G-d.
2). Don't worship idols.
3). Don't murder.
4). Don't steal.
5). Don't abuse animals.
6). Respect the holiness of marriage
7). Establish justice.

The 5 precepts define morality as this:
1). Don't kill.
2). Don't steal.
3). Don't lie.
4). Don't take drugs.
5). Don't commit sexual immorality.

See? Universal morality.
Heirio

Con

"1). Don't kill.
2). Don't steal.
3). Don't lie.
4). Don't take drugs.
5). Don't commit sexual immorality."

1. We have people in this world who kill people and don't think it is wrong.
2. We have people in this world who steal and don't think it is wrong.
3. We have loads of people who lie in this world and don't think it is wrong.
4. We have people in this world who take drugs and don't think it is wrong.
5. By sexual immorality I am just going to presume you mean rape. There are people who do this and don't think it is wrong.

Since we have people in this world who do all these things without thinking it is wrong, this point is easily refuted.

A good example for people who do these things would be ISIS, who kill, steal, lie, rape and still believe they're moral.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

Irrelevant, they think it is OK, in reality it is not, what makes something wrong you may ask? First and foremost it violates a right, these rights are universal and self evident, John Locke summed them up as "Life, Liberty, and Property," I decided to expound on these and list 10 fundamental rights:
1). The right to life.
2). The right to Liberty.
3). The right to Property.
4). The right to Privacy.
5). The right to Free Speech.
6). The right to dignity.
7). The right to Trial.
8). The right to vote.
9). The right to security and defense of these rights.
10). The right to equality.

What makes something wrong is violating these rights, so how is this different from the satanic bibles version "do what you want but hurt no one?"
Not much, but this is the danger of it;
"If you get a cup of coffee that is 95% coffee and 5% arsenic, it's still going to kill you, and this is the most dangerous kind of lie, the ones that have enough truth in it to make you think it is plausible, but enough lie to mislead you,"

And this is exactly how the Satanic bible is, their version of morality is true enough to get you to buy it, but false enough to cause massive moral deprivation. Causing you to justify prostitution, if you were to go by the Satanic bible, you would say it is OK because it is not harming anyone, but if you went by universal rights, even assuming G-d doesn't exist, which he does, you would say that prostitution is immoral because it violates the 6th universal right; the right to dignity.
Heirio

Con

"Irrelevant, they think it is OK, in reality it is not" If they think it is okay, then there is no objective morality, since if there was objective morality, they'd recognise it was wrong. But they don't.

"1). The right to life.
2). The right to Liberty.
3). The right to Property.
4). The right to Privacy.
5). The right to Free Speech.
6). The right to dignity.
7). The right to Trial.
8). The right to vote.
9). The right to security and defense of these rights.
10). The right to equality."

Russia doesn't give equality to LGBT people (neither do you apparently), but they don't think they're doing anything wrong. If these "universal laws" were truly universal and based off objective morality, they'd realise that making LGBT people live in inequality was wrong. But they don't.

"And this is exactly how the Satanic bible is, their version of morality is true enough to get you to buy it, but false enough to cause massive moral deprivation." HA! Called it! You do realise that I never claimed to completely follow the Satanic bible right? You've just assumed this. Nice going man.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

Yeah I don't care how Russia acts.
Regardless, the gay people are NOT being treated unequally, we just won't let them do certain things because they are immoral, that's not inequality.
Anyway, I never said you followed the Satanic Bible, but you DID say that you agree with the particular quote from the Satanic bible, "do what you want but hurt no one," so I refuted this lie.
Heirio

Con

"Regardless, the gay people are NOT being treated unequally, we just won't let them do certain things"

That is treating them unequally. Even if they were immoral, it would still be unequal treatment. Unequal means not the same. #maths

"because they are immoral,"

Millions of people disagree with you, which proves subjective morality. If morality was objective, we'd all be agreeing with each other. But we're not, we're disagreeing. We have different views on morality, hence morality is subjective.

So that's it folks, he shows how he is homophobic and he strangely enough proves me right. Thank you all for watching and vote for con!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
It's no use simply stating that you are correct and then insulting me for not believing the same thing.

Not a good way to convince someone.

You want to convince me that morality has defined parameters? Fine.

Prove it.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
"What I say is truth. Con thinks this, Con is an idiot."

^Your argument.

You say morality is objective?

Prove it.

Prove to me that it has defined parameters.
Posted by GoOrDin 7 months ago
GoOrDin
morality has defined parameters. Whatever your opinions are, they are not morals. Morals have very specific attributes.

Con is an idiot. that is why I came here. And look. He proved it. he thinks morals are Subjective.
Despite they have definitions attributed to the Word.

git.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
Fair enough.
Posted by Jerry947 7 months ago
Jerry947
I am on your opponents side...though I don't think he did a better job than you in this debate necessarily.

As for how I found this, I think I was scrolling through some of the debates in the ethics/religious section and your debate appeared on one of those pages.
Posted by Heirio 7 months ago
Heirio
Going from your profile, I'm assuming you are on my opponents side?

Also, how did you come across this debate? It's very old.
Posted by Jerry947 7 months ago
Jerry947
This is a terrible debate.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: squonk// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: In defence of his assertion that "morality is NOT subjective" Pro listed the 7 Noahide laws (from Judaism) and the Five Precepts (from Buddhism). In response to the question, "What makes something wrong?" Pro listed 10 human rights, claiming that any transgression of human rights is morally wrong. Pro's argument can be summarized as, "Here are some moral principles found in certain religions. It is wrong to violate human rights. Therefore morality is NOT subjective." This is not a coherent argument. Con argued that opinions (on moral issues) vary from person to person. Each person believes that their moral opinions are "right" and others are "wrong." If morality were objective, these disagreements wouldn't exist; it would be possible to determine who is correct and settle the issue. But this isn't possible. Therefore, morality is subjective. Points to Con for more convincing arguments. Pro failed to support his position AT ALL until Round #3. Therefore, points to Con for con

[*Reason for removal*] While the arguments points are sufficiently explained, conduct remains insufficient. The voter has to do more than point out that one side failed to argue the issue coherently until a later round in order to justify conduct, as conduct has more to do with how a debater addresses their opponent, their audience, or others.
************************************************************************
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 9 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
@Heirio his early one are the funniest.
here is and example of objective morality @ViceRegent
Heirio says on his page he is against torture ( im specifying this because it might be wrong some reason)
I stand with torture for information. there is your example of morals being subjective.
Posted by Heirio 9 months ago
Heirio
It's nice to see how ViceRegent is performing verbal diarrhoea all over this page.
No votes have been placed for this debate.