The Instigator
twighlighttrees
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Morality is 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 1 vote the winner is...
sengejuri
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 314 times Debate No: 54674
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

twighlighttrees

Pro

Resolved: That morality is a subjective trait, and the process that determines weather or not something is morally good or bad can be defined by "the outcome of events and how we feel about those outcomes. " The basis for my argument is that it is an observable occurrence. I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting the debate and that my resolution is suffice to build a counter argument against.
sengejuri

Con

I accept. Looking forward to opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
twighlighttrees

Pro

twighlighttrees forfeited this round.
sengejuri

Con

Well, that is unfortunate. Pro offered no argument, but I will still give a short one to refute the claim.

Saying "morality is subjective" is an objective statement. It is a statement of fact that the instigator is trying to prove. This contradiction alone makes such a claim extremely difficult to defend.

Nevertheless, Pro claims that we can observe morality being defined by the outcome of events and how we feel about them. This is not true. The American legal system, for example, legislates numerous moral issues such as murder, divorce, theft, and sexual misconduct. These issues are adjudicated according to an objective standard (the law) regardless of how judges or juries personally feel about them. For example, in 1993 a woman named Ellie Nesler shot and killed her husband who was accused of molesting her son. Many people across the nation praised her actions and called for her acquittal. Despite all this, she was still sentenced to 10 years in prison. In another example, George Zimmerman was found not guilty in the murder of Trayvon Martin, even though many people felt he was guilty. These are just two example that prove we determine right and wrong based on an objective standard, not on our personal feelings.

Another problematic implication of claiming that good and bad are defined by how we feel is that we lose all authority to condemn the actions of others. If someone cuts in front of you at the store, you may feel angry and offended. But if the person who cut you feels it was completely justified, then who is right? On a much more extreme level, on what authority do we condemn the Nazis' actions if morality is subjective and based on personal feeling? The Nazis certainly felt that they were justified and right. Of course, this makes no sense. The truly observable occurrence is that we all sense that the Nazis were wrong based on some objective standard of behavior that we believe, at some level, all people should be held accountable to.

I hope my opponent does not forfeit the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
twighlighttrees

Pro

twighlighttrees forfeited this round.
sengejuri

Con

Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
twighlighttreessengejuriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits, and arguments for the completely unresponded-to-case. Nobody sourced, and what little S&G Pro provided was equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.