The Instigator
RedAtheist912
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WCBC15
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Morality is not objective (Contender: Con)

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: 6/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 268 times Debate No: 92740
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

RedAtheist912

Pro

Is morality objective?

By objective, one would mean fixed rules. Shall it be given by a supposed higher being, it doesn't matter.

By subjective, one would mean the morality is flexible, under human opinion.

So the long and short of it: objective is fixed, subjective is flexible.

I will take the side that morality is not objective, Contender will take the side that it is.

Con may begin arguments in Round 1.
WCBC15

Con

While morals can be subjective at times, there are certain things that are universally and timelessly wrong. Things such as murder, rape, stealing have always been wrong. Therefore morality is objective.
Debate Round No. 1
RedAtheist912

Pro

There are often situations where the rules should be broken. Reality is almost never black and white.

At this time, what if that someone, let's name him Tom, knows he has done a really bad thing. He is a murderer. Everybody with an objective morality view would see him as sinful, as a killer, deserving punishment. But what if he killed in self-defense? It is reasonable to say he isn't the one at fault. Perhaps there is a law in the objective morality rulebook that says it's okay to kill in self-defense. Let's flip the tables again. What if Tom's assailant wasn't really all that threatening, and Tom was overreacting? In that sense Tom is now at fault. By now objective morality would probably not be covering this circumstance. But then, what if Tom had a panic disorder? That would really mess things up. People are rarely maleficent just because they like evil, the truth is is rarely that simple. That's why we have lawyers to take in all these circumstances and determine the fate of Tom. If we just punished poor old Tom like that according to an ultimate objective morality, it wouldn't be really righteous nor moral, would it? And that is why it is better that our morals, laws can and should be debatable and questionable.
WCBC15

Con

My opponent fails in his argument went he starts by saying Tom has done a very bad thing. If morality is subjective Con cannot say murder is absolutely wrong. Secondly my opponent equated murder to self defense. The problem with his illustration is that murder is unjust killing which has been universally wrong,. but self defense on the other hand is not wrong. His illustration doesn't show whether morality is objective or subjective.

Why morals are objective is because as we've seen is that they are universally binding. Murder is always wrong no matter who commits it, in the same way giving food to the poor is always seen as good. Morals cannot be subjective because it's impossible to live out. There would be no right and wrong, every law written would be arbitrary because every man is there own law giver.
Debate Round No. 2
RedAtheist912

Pro

That's the point I'm trying to make. Has Tom done a very bad thing? He did it in self-defense, but what if the danger he was in was just a burglar? That's why I'm saying if you say imply murder is absolutely wrong, there is always going to be circumstances that are not covered by objective morality. Say your loved one, maybe your child, is a bully. He doesn't really do any physical damage, he just likes to get others' lunch money. But what if one day a victim, of your child's bullying just pulls a gun out and shoots your child?

According to objective morality, the gunner is not at fault. He is killing in self-defense, isn't he?

That's the problem I'm trying to highlight. That's why morality cannot be objective. I hope you address this problem.

Now, why do we have lawyers? To solve a skirmish, or theft, or litigation. Why don't we just judge people according to a supposed objective moral rule book, like say the Bible?

Would the Orlando shooting would be considered moral? Would stoning adulterers would be considered moral? Likely so.

If the Quran were to be a the objective moral rule book, would you be happy about that? Killing unbelievers, death for apostasy, all these would be considered moral.

These are the problems if we applied objective morality in our society. A great example would be Sharia Law in Islamic countries. What's your opinion - is it moral?

Now, why don't you support the killing of homosexuals, just like in your ultimate, flawless rulebook says you should?

Because you've questioned and evaluated whether this rule is really moral. You have used subjective morality.

These are the problems of objective morality. Subjective morality is the solution.

"There would be no right and wrong, every law written would be arbitrary because every man is there own law giver."
No. It's the combined debates and discussions of people highly educated in the field that gives the rules, in our case the law. But remember, these are still subject to change and are not final. Any changes of the law would be planned, discussed, debated, evaluated and then passed. Subjective morality does not mean everyone is their own lawgiver, not at all. We wouldn't want a law that is unquestionable. We want laws that do not reek of monarchy and dictatorship.
WCBC15

Con

WCBC15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RedAtheist912

Pro

RedAtheist912 forfeited this round.
WCBC15

Con

WCBC15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.