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

Morality is Objective

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 60678
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




Pro starts.


Morality is like a person's fart: Those who can't relate to you will think it smells; those who can relate to you will ignore it - fart on a universal level, like morality, is based on subatomic particles that are objective by nature.
Debate Round No. 1


Con Case

I define morality as "the code of right and wrong that guides our moral decision making and rationale".

I define objective as unchanging in nature and subjective as able to change or dependent on one's view.

Sources for my definitions will be provided upon request, but they're fairly common sense so I don't see the need.

Morality is subjective for a few simple reasons:

First, humans are capable of holding different views on the same subject and not necessarily be wrong. You may believe that gay marriage is wrong and I may believe it isn't wrong and neither one of us has to be wrong. This is because moral thoughts are based upon perception. Take for example color. There are vibrant arrays of colors available for humans to see; from blue seas to green fields of grass to midnight skies, we are able to perceive color via our vision. But those who's vision is marred via being colorblind aren't able to perceive the same things that those who aren't color blind. If I'm looking at a red apple and a colorblind person incapable of seeing the color red is looking at the same red apple, we will both be seeing different things: me red and him not red. That doesn't make me right and him wrong, or vice versa. It means that the realities we are able to perceive are differing. I perceive the apple to be red, so my belief is that the apple is red, while he perceives the apple to be not red, so believes otherwise. Our perceptions of our realities are both true, yet differing. It destiny mean one of us is wrong, it just means that truth is subjective to who is doing the perceiving.

Morality functions in the same regards. Let's take the example of abortion. I may perceive a fetus to be a mass of cells, and thus something not worthy of human regard and setting we can kill off without being morally guilty of murdering a human, while another may perceive the fetus to be a person in growth, thus worthy of moral consideration and making it murder to terminate it. Neither one of us is wrong per se, rather our realities that we are able to perceive differ. This means that moral truth is dependent on who is doing the perceiving, thus making it necessarily subjective.

Second, in order for morality to be objective then there would be clear cut rights and wrongs and little room for disagreement. This would necessitate that we would all believe the same beliefs and perceive the same realities and truths. Thus, in order for my opponent to prove that morality is objective he must show that everyone believes the same things.

There's a clear, laughable problem with this, though, namely that we're ok a debating website, a place where people discuss conflicting views and exchange different ideas. Not everyone here believes the same thing. Hell, the fact that this debate is occurring proves that there is two people who do not believe the same things, thus disproving moral objectivity.

I pass the floor over to my opponent.


I do not need your definitions because you are an idiot and I am a genius. So you can take that distinctionary and throw it into the trash bin.

You have already made the mistake of assuming that both are not wrong, rather than both are wrong and not wrong based on the individual parts of their perception. This is not a binary world you fart sniffer. This is a omni-directional Universe that consists of points throughout the entire Universe that form in the same pattern as the pores on your skin. These points are triggered by stimuli through electromagnetic waves where in connections are made. Frankly your stimuli is failing stimulation because your stimuli has blue balls.

Morality can be objective only when you are not being stupid and treating it as a black and white system. You should go mate with an old xerox machine because your views are black and white. There are points and parts of a perception - there is no "X here/ X there". It's not 50-50, or 30-70, and all that stupid trite.

I'm not okay with this site. This site is a complete joke. But you know, what can you do? Idiots like you are on here wanking off tautologies like you know anything of which you write. It's all trite, my friend. Please evacuate your delusion as soon as possible because the only thing I can imagine right now is this dark little blob inside your head masturbating on your work station.
Debate Round No. 2


So my opponent instead of engagingly case rationally has resorted to strings of insults. It's really rude and hurtful, and I would ask the judges to consider his impolite behavior as they're voting.

Moving on from that, my opponent accuses me of thinking in black and white, and I make the assumption that everyone's perception can't be wrong. I'll tackle both, then move onto his argument about subatomic particles, then rehash why I'm winning this debate.

Black and White Thought

I really don't understand this objection at all. My opponent never really says how I'm thinking in black and white, rather just asserts I am, which doesn't really make sense. Moreover, if anything it would be objective thought that would be thinking in black and white, since they view morality as having one objective truth, and everything else being not true, which is virtually the definition of black and white thinking. Subjective thought, on the other hand, would assert that morality isn't based on the black and white thinking, but rather there are multiple different perceptions possible on every situation, meaning there's more than just a duality of choices.

Both can be wrong?

The strange thing is my opponent is right and wrong at the same time. I never make the assumption that both can be wrong in my apple example, as it's perfectly the apple can be green and both of their perceptions are flawed, but they're also not wrong at the same time. We simply evaluate issues and circumstances with the information we have available to us at the time, and make a judgment of right and wrong at that moment. That doesn't mean there isn't new imformation out there that we can come across, forcing us to reexamine our perception of the issue and formulate new beliefs.

Let's go back to the apple example. Suppose I'm colorblind and looking at the red apple. My perception of the apple, although medically flawed, provides me with the information that the apple lacks color, or is a colorless color whichever you prefer. But if one day I were to receive an operation that restored color to my sight and looked at that apple again (it would probably be moldy at this point but let's ignore that for the sake of discussion), I would be perceiving new information, I.e the apple has color now and it's the color red. At that point I would be forced to reconsider my stance on the issue of the color of the apple and formulate a new belief.

Morality works the same way. We receive new information all the time, whether it be from science or medicine or philosophers or whatever, about what is correct and what is not correct. If we didn't African Americans would still be plowing fields and would be being mistreated constantly. But since we now know that they aren't actually subhuman, and are worthy of moral consideration, we no longer enslave them. This change over time necessitates moral subjectivity's existence.

Subatomic what-now?

My opponent makes an argument in his opening round saying that morality is based off of some kind of subatomic particle, and that these particles are necessarily objective. The problem is that's -literally- all he says. He doesn't bother to explain his views or defend them in any way. He doesn't even bring them up in his next round. Don't allow him to in this final round as I don't have another chance to examine them critically and refute them since this is the last chance i get to speak this debate.


My opponent hasn't attacked any of my points beyond calling me stupid for having them. He provided no justification for his argument, and hasn't addressed the reasoning behind mine. I'm responding to the few objections he did raise.

So vote con!

Thanks to pro for a good debate!


Calling you an idiot is not being rude - calling you a retard is being rude. There's a difference between saying you don't know how to be intelligible and saying that you're disabled.

Black and white thinking because you fail to understand that there isn't two sides to a picture - but many. You insist that a picture to be either moralistically objective or moralistically subjective - you do not understand how analysis is a form of perception and its the result of an observer being responsible with the information they take in and properly relating that to how the world works. Therefore you know nothing of perception and how objectivity can exist within it along with morality (also based on perception).

There's a difference between saying why the water freezes and saying sex with food is better than sex without food. One is universal; the other is personal.

The Universe is based on subatomic particles - morality is also based on subatomic particles. The human brain has a built in guilty consciousness, which means we can experience shame and regret, therefore I stand by my words when I say morality is intrinsically objective but idiots toy with it and turn it into a sandbox.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Nefelibata 3 years ago
There's no need to be rude. We can all get along :)
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
It's so funny when people admit to their backwards logic. I need to calm down? I'm calm. Look at you Mr. Dog backed up in a corner without consciously aware of acting like an animal backed up in a corner as per every hypocrite would.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
Pro, you need to take a chill pill.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: pro completely ignored con and just attacked him as well as the site
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a strong case on universality and the chemical reactions in the human brain. Yes, he was rude, but in a "select winner" debate you really should go with the better argument. Even in the 7-point system, conduct is a single point.
Vote Placed by Empiren 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro insulted Con for no reason whatsoever and pretty much disregarded the debate. Not only that, I don't think Pro even knew which side he was on...