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

Morality is Objective (Tournament Debate)

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,384 times Debate No: 34822
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)




I will argue pro that Morality is objective, my opponent will argue the con position or in other words he will argue for moral subjectivity. As per the tournament rules first round is for acceptance. I look forward to a good debate.


Yes, another Objectivity VS Subjectivity debate. This should be fun! Good luck Benny!!
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting and would like to get started. Just to let you know I will use the words relativism and subjective practically synonymously. Let me start off with a few questions. Is rape wrong? Is murder wrong? If there is no moral truth then how could anything be wrong? A moral relativist must say that according to someone’s personal morality, murder and rape are not wrong. Only moral objectivism can say that anything is wrong. If someone who believes that morality is subjective claims that anything is wrong, then they are inconsistent and do not truly believe morality is subjective in all cases. One common argument moral relativists make is that society determines right and wrong but throughout history societies have condoned all manners of atrocity, but moral subjectivity would tell us it was right for them. I would ask my opponent, is there such a thing as right and wrong and if so who determines what right and wrong is. What if my personal set of morals conflicts with yours who’s right? If I stole from you because my personal morality told me it was the right thing to do, you couldn’t argue with that. I don’t see how you could trust a fire fighter or police officer who truly believes morality was subjective because they would have no incentive to do their job, certainly their pay check wouldn’t justify the risk. Moral subjectivity allows for genocide without repercussion aside from a backlash based on emotion. Knowing what right and wrong is, is one major issue that separates man from animals. Sure it could be argued there might be animals more moral than humans, but that would acknowledge an objective morality, so any such argument would be self refuting.

In conclusion moral relativism is an intellectually inconsistent philosophy. If they truly believe it then there is also no such thing as justice and anything can be justified. If morality is subjective the worst dictators in the world cannot be condemned beyond a personal dislike. Morality must be objective for there to be any recourse for injustice. Only moral objectivism allows for there to be punishment for crimes and indeed crimes at all. Subjective morality is an emotion because it’s based on everyone’s personal feelings, objective morality is logical and originates outside of ourselves. It is therefore necessary that morality must be objective.

I look forward to my opponent’s answers.



To start this debate, I will quote my opponent a few times, and answer some neccesary points in his argument.


"Is rape wrong? Is murder wrong? If there is no moral truth then how could anything be wrong?"

I believe Rape/Murder is wrong. Not every person in the entire world does, this is why Morality is subjective. I will be touching on murder later in my case. But there is no such thing as a moral truth, just what we determine are moral, and true. My morals are synonymous to yours in several areas, however, not every one believes our morals to be true. In fact there may be millions, that even out number us in our moral belief, to prove that our morals can never be proven true outside of our hope and beliefs.

"I would ask my opponent, is there such a thing as right and wrong and if so who determines what right and wrong is."

I believe that the subject of what it right and wrong is determined by the societies, and individuals condoning the moral action. You and I can say that we believe another society has got it wrong all we want, but at the end of the day, that is just our relative opinion, and there is a mass who believe otherwise.

"What if my personal set of morals conflicts with yours who’s right? If I stole from you because my personal morality told me it was the right thing to do, you couldn’t argue with that."

No one is universally "right". I would say I am right, and the thief could potentially say he was right (if he truly believed that what he was doing was right). The thief may have had a motion that was inherently good to him. Maybe he was stealing so that he could feed his family, or maybe I was corrupted, and my money was earned through ways that justified his action. Or maybe he was brought up to believe that theft is okay.

No matter what the scenario, there is no objective moral way to say that he is wrong in his actions, outside of my own distaste of his action.

"Moral subjectivity allows for genocide without repercussion aside from a backlash based on emotion."

All Moral subjectivity does is state the obvious fact that there is not a moral set of rules that every individual must follow. Based on history, and the way things have changed over the course of the years as societally acceptable, or un-acceptable, and the differences in cultural morals. But how does Genocide go without repercussion? Maybe there isn't a moral repercussion (I have a point about this in my case), but there is likely a society that will react as a result of a Genocide.


Contention 1: There cannot be a universal set of Moral Laws

It is impossible. Societal views change and vary between cultures all around the world, and change throughout history. Concepts we view as moral now, contradict concepts those of history have pursued. Let’s take one common issue: Murder. I am going to safely assume that my opponent would support that murder falls under his view on moral objectivity, as a violation of moral conduct. The problem is, that murder is circumstantial. If you were to hear about a man killing another man in the street in the cold blood, you would probably say that the person is of bad moral behavior, based on our subjective read on morals. However, in most societies in history, moral standards were much different. For example, in a lot of societies, people were killed by governments and societies, for such reasons we today would classify as moral. So if people were getting murdered publicly for reasons that contradict reasons we today agree with, how can morality be subjective? Were the actions accepted by millions of people inherently wrong from the beginning of time? If they were how can we justify this? Philosophically, it is much more logical to believe that morality varies between people and societies, rather than being universal.

Here are some examples of societies that condoned killing:

There are also plenty of dictators in the world who have accepted mass genocide and killing, proving that with all this death accepted by a society, that Morality must be Subjective.

Contention 2: Moral Consequences

If Morality is universal, why aren’t there universal moral consequences? When I say consequences, I use the word loosely, by the way. Consequences can range from societal punishment for actions, all the way to the feeling of guilt.

But let’ talk about the feeling of guilt for a second. This is a feeling that usually follows a person committing a wrong action. Let’s say you have been raised and taught to believe abortion is a violation of morality. Your friend has grown and learned that Abortion is acceptable. Your friend doesn’t feel guilt for having an abortion. Your friend cannot be punished for having an abortion. There is no moral consequence for their action, other than it offending people of the opposing view type. But if there is no physical consequence, no guilt, anything, than we can safely determine that morality is subjective. Morality between the two individuals obviously differs, but nothing establishes this rule to make it believable enough to say that one person’s morals are more correct than the other.

Contention 3: What are the moral laws, who made them, and what makes them universal?

What are the moral laws, and how do we know what they are? If we presume they are made by a God, than we submit to universal fallibility. God cannot be physically or aesthetically proven outside of faith principals, and belief. While I hope this debate doesn’t get into God, the question remains. There is no written document, or known set of rules by all people to clarify what exactly these rules are. And to be universal, that would at least require most people to know of what they are and act upon them, would it not? What makes them universal In the first place?


There are so many loop holes, and problems that go into objectivity that it is difficult to say with any clarity we are all bound by some hidden moral system. We as societies differ so much on things like, slavery, murder, etc, that we can never say that one thing is more right than the other. There is also no reason to assume Objectivity. Why wouldn't’t assume right from the get-go, that morality is subjective based on dis-agreeances in philosophy resulting in mass debate? Subjectivity thus is the much easier philosophy to buy, as it is assumed, and doesn’t have loopholes, as Objectivity has. I thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to round 3.

Debate Round No. 2


Before I start it occurred to me that no one had defined what moral means. It is important to understand what it is exactly we are debating. According to Merriam-Webster:

a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :ethical <moral judgments>

b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <amoral poem>

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior

d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>

e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent> [1]

The first definition mentions ethics, which is distinct but related, however not to be confused.

Now to get on to my arguments.

You can assert all you want and sincerely believe that 2+2 can equal anything other than 4 in a base ten system but your belief does not make it correct. There are many wrong answers to the question but only one correct one. If you don’t believe this then there is no way you could pass a math class outside of just doing what you are told. In the same way someone can assert and sincerely believe their personal set of moral beliefs are correct but that doesn’t make them right. I can insist something is morally right while someone else is equally adamant that it is wrong, we can’t both be right. Of all the positions people hold only one can be right and indeed, logically we could all be wrong and some other position is correct. The fact that people hold vastly different views is not sufficient evidence to prove morality is subjective.

Morality is not on the same level as your favorite flavor ice cream or favorite color. If it were there would be no point in debating it. Moral relativism puts it on the same level.

Rather than asking if rape and murder are wrong I will now ask why they are wrong. If there is no metaphysical reason and it is just your personal opinion then there is no reason to oppose them. Additionally, Subjective morality violates the law of non-contradiction. [2] When two people’s personal morality come in conflict, who determines who is right? If the answer is a judge wouldn’t that just be the judge imposing his own personal morality on others? That also equates morality with legalism and there is a distinction between the two, not all that is legal is moral and not all that is moral is legal.

My opponent presented a link on WWII. That is in fact a great example of why morality cannot be universal. Hitler thought what he was doing was right, but he was wrong. A moral relativist could only claim Hitler was wrong in his own personal opinion and by his own personal feelings. Such a view would preclude any need to stop any such atrocity. The reason society reacted to the holocaust was because it was objectively wrong, even though Hitler had brainwashed enough people to think otherwise.

My opponent then shows a list of societies where murder is right for them, but again imagine if all those societies believe 2+2=5, they would be wrong. A cow is still a cow even if you sincerely believe it is a horse. Saying that a majority of societies believe something and that makes it right is the fallacy of appeal to majority. The truth of something is not decided democratically.

My opponent asks why aren’t there universal consequences. Well the fact that consequences aren’t immediately apparent does not mean they don’t exist. Let’s look at some examples. First of all there is guilt, now some people, most notable psychopaths don’t feel guilt but that is a deficiency on their part. Most people, when they see or hear about an immoral act it elicits some sort of reaction or even feel guilt after acting immorally themselves, this is called a conscience. Some people suppress their conscience if they think their actions will be more immediately beneficial to themselves. If it were subjective why should they care? STDs: You get STDs by being irresponsible with your body, yes ids are born with them, but that is due to what their parents did. Ultimately, death could be seen as the final moral punishment, yes death comes to everyone but do you know anyone who is perfect? However, even if no consequences existed, would that truly be proof that morality is subjective? A counter could be made that doing the right thing is not always rewarded but again that is not sufficient proof for subjectivism.

My opponent brings up God as a possible source for morality, while I will agree with him that I won’t focus the debate on that, indeed that would take a completely new debate, I would say yes, if morality originated from God, it is sufficient for moral objectivism. Then of course the argument would be whose God. Again, even though religions disagree on moral truth, does not make it subjective, it just means that someone is wrong (or more specifically, no more than one is correct).

I admit that logically, it is possible I am wrong about some things that are and aren’t moral but that just proves even more that morality is objective and that if I am wrong then I hold to a wrong view. I suspect some people adhere to moral subjectivism because they refuse to entertain the idea that they could be wrong.

I have demonstrated why the idea of moral relativism is based on a faulty premise and relies on a number of fallacies to support it.

I than my opponent and wish him luck in the next round.




I Thank my opponent for offering definitions, however I would like for the viwers to keep in mind that even with definitions, there isn't an objective way to define Morality within the confines of universality, and subjectivity.

If we look at definitions A, B, C, and E, they all basically can apply to both subjectivity, and Objectvity, while D works more in with my own point towards subjectivity. If morals do are operative based on one's conscience, than if one does not feel guilt for committing an action, and thinks what they did was right, does that not prove that morality is subjective?

Mathematical Loopholes

My opponent continuously uses the “2+2=5” argument as correlation from moral objectivity. Let me explain the problem with this. Math represents equations that are made up to be Absolute. There are actually flaws, contradictions, and paradox’s in many math functions, but I’ll give this argument the benefit of the doubt, and show why there is a distinction. While for the most part math is absolute in development of most human functions, Morality isn’t.;

If I try programming a computer, or creating a building schematic, and I mess up on the math equation, something aesthetically will mal-function. An obvious problem can accrue from math. Mis-judging the length of a board from improper math when constructing a base, can result in an ineffective structure. This makes math pretty cut and dry. Math has to be perfect for things to work out. So where is the meta-physical malfunction in morality? There can be one, however it is subjective to societal consequentilism.

Point 1: If I kill someone in the Americas, I can spend life in prison.

Point 2: If I kill someone in Africa, it’s likely that no one will know, or that few will care, if I do it outside of any centralized government.

Point 3: If I am an Aztec, I can sacrifice an innocent person/slave, and society will accept the action.

In point one, I show where my opponents idea of what moral objectivity is, and show how it is condoned in an organized society. In point 2, I show how people commit murder in other parts of the world without consequence. In point 3, I show how there is a different standard on morality in different cultures. If Morality is universal, why isn’t there a set standard for all three situations, rather than variations? Where is this god written conduct code, outside of some centralized beliefs? There is no malfunction for the Aztec in Point 3. They simply can kill, and have the best day of their life, with no moral side effects, and people will might even commend them for their actions. Morality is a product of how we are raised, and how we are taught. If we are brought up to believe that a certain thing is right or wrong, than largely that is where our moral principles will be influenced from, though they can deter. I could branch off and make my own moral system, and pursue it. We look at sociopaths, and serial killers, and think that what they are doing is wrong. And they don’t see this, or make the link. But there are hundreds of sociopaths around the world, and all of them can lack this moral link. So are hundreds of people just insane, or are we just not on a different page? This leads me into my distinction.

Consequentilism loopholes

Point 1: A soldier kills someone in battle. The person he killed was considered a good man by his peers. He never killed, never stole, and treated people kindly. His government drafted him into a war he did not believe in. The soldier that killed him doesn’t know this, and thinks he is defending his country. Most people agree that his actions are acceptable, and he is honored for his actions. Is his ignorance really the line for ending the life of an innocent, good man?

Point 2: If a man who killed another man is sentenced to death penalty, and a majority of people believe this consequence is moral, where is the line? A lot of people think the death penalty is a just result. A lot of people don’t. But if it is universal that killing is immoral, as my opponent seems to suggest, than there has to be some diversity in the rule.

Point 3: What about the un-informed with good intentions? If you see someone murdering someone on the street, and act as a vigilante and kill the aggressor, just to find out that his victim was planning on releasing Anthrax, did you commit an immoral act? You didn’t know what was happening, but attempted to act in good moral standings. What if a man is sentenced to life in prison for something he didn’t do, but has a significant amount of evidence implicating him? Is it right that he spends his life in prison for something he didn’t do? Is it right that we don’t punish him, when he is the best suspect?

Point 4: What about Utilitarianism? Is it okay to kill someone against their will to save more people? What if you were held at gun point, and told to rape and kill a woman or several other people would die? Would committing this act justify the “immoral act” originally being committed?

I don’t expect my opponent to answer each of these, but to address the overall point of these examples. How can a universal rule consider things such as, intentions, accidents, greater good, etc? How are these distinctions made? Who/What decides what they are? And how do you know? We have to admit that our morals are our own, and that there is no way to prove that these morals are shared universally. This is why differences in societal/individual belief are important factors to consider, when referring to a universal code of morality. Morality has to be subjective based on differences of conclusive moral reasoning sensibility analyzation. I will gladly say that I believe in my morals, but that I can never prove that they are ultimately the same for everyone else. We should pursue our own morals with the knowledge that others won’t be the same.

"Rather than asking if rape and murder are wrong I will now ask why they are wrong."

I cannot speak for all of those who may feel rape is right. I do feel many people who commit this action violating even their own moral standards. But I also believe there are those who have subjective morals about it being right.

There were some arguments from the American Vision that seem to justify some of these people's beliefs.

"[W]hat right do you have to assert that women ought to be exempted from the blind submission to men’s caprices Nature dictates?

[W]e have received from Nature the right indiscriminately to express our wishes to all women . . . we have the right to compel their submission . . . Indeed! has Nature not proven that we have that right, by bestowing upon us the strength needed to bend women to our will. . . . I have incontestable rights to the enjoyment of her; I have the right to force from her this enjoyment, if she refuses me it for whatever the cause may be."

There is actually a lot more that goes into the argument (I advise that the viewers read from the whole thing. My beliefs, of course contradicting this point, do not matter, but this point goes to show that some can demonstrate morality as Subjective, per justifying beliefs.

"The reason society reacted to the holocaust was because it was objectively wrong, even though Hitler had brainwashed enough people to think otherwise."

The holocaust was not objectively wrong, but it was wrong to many societies. Hitler wasnt't alone in his movement, he had support, which was what made him successful. However the fact that Nazi'ism still exists, contradicts your point either way. (see video).

My opponent has basically admitted that without guilt, morality can be subjective. This ties in with my consequentilism point, concerning the lack of guilt when committing abortions, etc.

I thank my opponent for his response.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for his arguments. As this is the last round I will rebut his arguments but not present any new ones.

My opponent claims the definition given leaves objectivity up for debate. However I think e. is a pretty solid objective statement. In any case however tearing apart a given definition as long as it adequately defines the topic is just semantics and that is really not the point of the debate.

My opponent continues to assert that because societies have different ideas of what morality is that it therefore follows that proves morality is subjective. That is just bad logic. The reason I brought up the Math analogy to begin with was to prove that asserting something is right and even having a majority agree with you does not make it so.

My opponent brings up consequential loopholes. This again doesn’t prove his point, just because there are circumstances where it is acceptable to kill someone doesn’t make murder relative. Self defense for one thing isn’t murder. Killing someone in the same way and circumstance is always wrong. Killing someone who is going to kill you is not morally equivalent actions. It is the intention that makes an action immoral. Accidental death is not the same as murder because there was no intention to kill. There are times where there is a choice between two moral wrongs, that doesn’t make either tight and in fact there may be another option.

My opponent has also ignored a few points that are vital to my argument. For one thing he hasn’t explained how his view is consistent with the law of non contradiction. If he cannot prove this his whole argument falls apart.

There was also my point about a lack of actual justice in a morally subjective worldview, wouldn’t the judge just be forcing his subjective morality on others? This relates to what I mentioned a few paragraphs up in regard to killing, the difference between innocent and guilty plays into intentionality.

I pass it back to my opponent for his final remarks. Vote for pro.




In my opponents last round he made a comment referring to the use of semantics. I would like to clear this up, as I feel this accusation is unfair. First off, nothing in my argument was a play or twist on words, or definition. All I said was that the definition of Morality is open to interpretation, and can be manipulated into objectivity and subjectivity regardless. Basically there is literally nothing accomplished from defining morality. I can take any one of the definitions provided by my opponent and apply it to subjective morality, just as he could try to apply it to objective morality. We need to focus on the philosophy of the aspect of morality, as there is no defined principal of morality.


Next, I would like to address my opponent’s comment addressing the loopholes in consequentilism. Loopholes in consequentilism, is exactly my point however. You’ll notice that my arguments were in response to your bit about “feeling guilty for committing rape”. The loophole with consequentilism is that by assuming a person feels guilt, they are violating morality. Which means, by my opponents own standards, if a person doesn’t feel guilt, or feel that there is nothing wrong with their action, than that person hasn’t acted immorally. I can say that what the person did was wrong, but if he thinks what he is doing is okay, or even good, than why is my morality objective over his? How can anyone possibly determine this? Again for a deeper look on understanding moral principal arguments, you can read the link I provided in the last round regarding this issue (purpose being to prove that this isn’t always a mindless hateful action). The point about consequentilism, isn’t what I am trying to advocate, and I want to stress that this point of contention was made directly as a response to my opponents consistent emotional appeals. Several times he will state things that appeals to our centralized morals, and applying guilt to these circumstances. He uses incidents that many people agree is wrong such as rape and murder, which is directly what the consequentilism point was directed at. However, notice how my opponent has ignored the more “controversial issues”, that I continuously try to get him to notice throughout this debate.

You will notice that my opponent is only taking my arguments at face value when he analyzes my arguments as something as simple as “Societies dis-agree, thus no objective morality can exist.” This is essentially the summary of it. But there are so many important questions that need to be answered within this context before we can ever justify an objective morality. We have so many issues even within your own realm of morality that has black and white context. I am talking about things like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Rights, Border Control, etc. Things that can’t possibly be determined as universal even within our own society. How can we determine that an Objective morality properly takes a stance on all these issues? Which side does the objective stance take? And the best question of all is how in the heck could you know that? This leads me to my conclusion.

Missed points?

My opponent says I missed his points about non-contradiction. This is false however. In my last round I pointed out how the fallacy in what he is saying doesn't make a difference to what I have been addressing this whole time.

I will clearly point out the issue:

When two people’s personal morality come in conflict, who determines who is right?

The answer to your question is: Philosophically, no one. Determining who is right can only be judged by perspective societies. In America someone can get a completely different result in a trial, than perhaps, that of Africa. Societies will deem who is right according to their subjective moral beliefs. However to answer your question philosophically, would mean that both individuals are correct. Their subjective morals and "Intentions" were both good, meaning that morality is subjective. There is no code or law that can define an objective moral law; Objectivity, doesn't an cannot exist. Even you have failed to give an example of what one would look like.

I don't think I understand where you are trying to go with the "judge forcing his morals on others." Of course he is! Just because a Judge forces his opinion on something, doesn't mean he is right or wrong. His action was subjective, as you pointed out. If a person was convicted or punished, he is a victim of circumstances. His moral subjectivity may have been violated, but that doesn't make moral subjectivity any less real, so I am not sure where exactly you were going with this point. If the one being punished had good intentions, than by your standards, morality is subjective.


Subjective morality doesn’t require a method of its approval. Those who feel there is no showing doctrine of conduct following objective morality, should automatically assume Subjectivity. Most Objectivists usually will have a written code in which they feel is the standard. For example, many Christians will believe that the biblical moral code (IE 10 commandments, etc). While there are many arguments that can go into dis-proving this, it is still a better approach at objectivity than the one my opponent has given in this debate. Why? Because in this debate, we haven’t established what an objective morality is. We have no reason to assume under my opponent’s philosophy that an objective morality can even exist, because we don’t know what it is. If we can’t rely on consequentilism to tell us due to loopholes as my opponent himself stated, and we don’t have anything to code out the bigger split issues, than all we have to go on, is that apparently rape and murder are immoral in my opponent’s objective morality. If this isn’t proof that morality has to be Subjective than I don’t know what is. My opponent has said he doesn’t know whether morality is objective or subjective, but that he tends to believe in objective morality, for his own reasons. I can understand that, because this is a discussion on philosophy, essentially a subject that is impossible to prove through human methods. In a way, I would have to agree, that I can never truly know if there is an objective morality. But here is the question: Why should I even consider the principal of an objective morality? It works the same with the concept of deities, aliens, myths, etc. Sure these things “could” exist, but belief in them will only always be a contention of personal belief, rather than an automatic assumption, as atheism/ agnosticism is, or more relevant, moral subjectivity.

So to end this debate, I would like to quote my opponent: It is the intention that makes an action immoral.

This my friends, is my opponents own words telling us Subjective Morality exists. As long as someone has the intention of good in their actions, their morals can be right just as equally as someone who opposes them. This versatile statement is a living demonstration that differences of belief breaks down to individuals intention, and what they believe is moral/immoral.

I thank my opponent for committing to responding to my arguments, and commend him for a fun and intelligent debate. I thank the readers for following, and wish my opponent luck in the voting period!

Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BennyW 4 years ago
Morals must be objective and absolute or our society cannot function. I could just tell you to stop pushing your personal morals on to me.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
I don't believe in absolute truth. And I would answer a yes to your second question. I would almost call myself a nihilist. Having a set of morals to me is important in keeping a functioning society, but I don't believe all men and women are tied to their actions in a moral sense. It is absolutely pointless to attach the word "moral" on their actions. I am a human, who has emotions and feelings towards the things you mentioned. I can say that an action like that is evil because it violates my ideas of how a person should act, and because of the feelings of negativity I feel towards such subjects. But logically I think it is foolish to claim that my version of what should and shouldn't be done is the same for everyone else. Because it isn't the same, Morality cannot be objective (if existent at all). It is good IMO to make positive "morals", and to abide by them in certain contexts of understanding the word.
Posted by janetsanders733 4 years ago
So murer, child abuse, rape, torture, etc. are not really morally evil, there just moral illusions?
Posted by janetsanders733 4 years ago
@TUF So you believe there is no absolute truth?
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
Our five senses vary from others five senses though, and that is the point. If you think what hitler did was evil, but he doesn't, the only thing to tell you that you are right is your own opinion. That is subjectivity in it's roots. It is impossible for objectivity to exist, except within one's own purposeful ignorance of the world.

Killing and murdering a group of people, yes is wrong. Hitler and others saw it as cleansing, and benefiting a society. My own beliefs do not change the rule unanimously for others.
I don't think a society full of ted bundy's would be morally good, but I am sure the Ted Bundy's wouldn't mind it. You can ask me these questions, all day, my answers will be the same. My morals lie in place with the ones I have seen and grown to know are the best options for my lifestyle. Different countries, and cultures dis-agree though. I also think discrimination, and slavery are wrong. Many people didn't think it was wrong (some still don't) and beliefs were only "changed" upon losing wars. What you or me think is right can never be universal, otherwise it doesn't make sense for such actions to exist in the first place. Again do you think slave drivers, and hitler supports honestly knew or thought what they were doing was wrong? And if so why on earth would they do it? And outside of your own opinion, how can you say that your opinion is the only unanimous existing opinion that can be qualified as a proper moral decision? On what basis of proof do you have to say that Subjectivity and relativism is not at play here? Again, if you want to debate I can potentially explain this much better.
Posted by janetsanders733 4 years ago
@TUF In moral experience we encounter objective moral values and duties, and so, in the absence of some sort of defeater of that belief, we are perfectly rational to hold to it. Moral realism is the default position, and you the moral sceptic needs to provide some powerful defeater to overcome it.
Posted by janetsanders733 4 years ago
@TUF Hitler did it because Hitler was evil. It does not matter if his henchman thought it was morally good. We know morality is objective through our five senses.

On what basis is what Hitler did morally wrong to you?
Do you think a society full of ted bundy's would be morally good?
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 4 years ago
Cons contention 1 is an obvious relativistic fallacy. Just because people have different moral beleifs does not mean they are all equally correct, Pros counter example of mathematics what SPOT ON. People can and will believe falsehoods, the proposition of objectivity has never been a perfect consensus on truth and morality is not exception. The fact that no one voted Pro is frankly disgusting to me.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
What hitler did was morally wrong. To me. Not to him and those who support him. Objective morality requires a BOP while subjectivity should be assumed. You must question why hitler did what he did. Do you think his intentions were evil or just the consequences of his actions? You have also selected a very narrow example that doesn't really hit a lot of my major points in this debate. If you would like to debate me feel free to send a challenge. I have done many debates on this subject.
Posted by janetsanders733 4 years ago
@TUF On one hand you want to affirm what Hitler did was morally wrong, on the other hand you are affirming moral relativism. You have no transcendent anchor for these moral values, and hence your lost in a sea of moral relativism.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 5 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even make the case for moral objectivism. Rather than proving morality through logic, he accepts that it comes from God. By this logic, morality comes from the subjective whims of God, and is non-objective. So as bad as the position is that he supports, I must support Con in this debate.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 5 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better arguments and refuted all of Pro's. Also, she had many more sources that weren't wikipedia/youtube.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really defined objective vs. relative morality. Con focused mainly on descriptive relative morality, which is all but indisputable.