Morality is not objective (Contender: Con)
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
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.
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 forfeited this round.
RedAtheist912 forfeited this round.
WCBC15 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.