The Instigator
DraftyBasilisk
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Melonnade
Con (against)
Losing
0 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...
DraftyBasilisk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 64732
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

DraftyBasilisk

Pro

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Starting arguments
Round 3 - Main arguments and rebuttals
Round 4 - Rebuttals and closing remarks

In this debate I will be arguing the position that moral judgments are subjective (based on personal belief and not fact) and my opponent will be arguing that morality is objective (factual moral judgments exist).

I look forward to debating this subject and good luck to anybody who accepts this challenge. :)
Melonnade

Con

If you believe in a religion, you can find clear guidelines for morality and immorality. For instance, Christians who believe that the 10 commandments are the final breakdown of what is moral and immoral. There is absolutely no action (whether it be passive or active) that isn't covered. Not everybody shares the same belief, but if Christians are right (not saying they are) then they did have the factual moral guidelines you are looking for. So now your argument needs to disprove Christianity and all other religions with similar rules. Good luck and nice topic. I would have preferred the other side.
Debate Round No. 1
DraftyBasilisk

Pro

Not only have you ignored the rules of the debate, but you have posed a fallacious argument in such a confident way as to try and end the debate before it has begun.
Because you have chosen to ignore the rules, I am going to use the rebuttal of your argument to make my opening argument.

'Not everybody shares the same belief' Yes, in this point you are right, that is why Divine Command is a form of moral subjectivity. Never in the history of the world has one set of divine moral codes been universally accepted. This makes them subjective even if they are enforced as the truth because there are countless people in the world who disagree with the 'moral truths' that religion put forward. They are not truth unless they are universally accepted as a truth, and my argument does not need to 'disprove Christianity and all other religions' because until their moral rules are accepted as fact by every human on the planet, they are not fact. Therefore this debate is not over, because you have not proven moral objectivity, you have just made it easier for me to make the case of subjectivity.

Thank you for accepting the challenge of this debate, and I hope to prove a more worthy opponent than you were obviously expecting. The ball is now in your court CON.
Melonnade

Con

Melonnade forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DraftyBasilisk

Pro

Con has failed to post their opening argument.
Melonnade

Con

Melonnade forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DraftyBasilisk

Pro

Con has failed to follow the rules, and failed to post any arguments. Con's over-confidence in their first post has wasted the debate, therefore I implore that you vote Pro.
Melonnade

Con

Melonnade forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DraftyBasilisk 2 years ago
DraftyBasilisk
by 'for "well being" to have any useful meaning, I'd argue that it has something to do with physical and emotional health' I assume you mean putting their life and risk and/or causing them intentional pain?

We do that when we put people in prison, is that an immoral act? Our soldiers do that to the enemy in defence of our country, are they immoral? The definition you have posed does not apply universally as fact because I'm sure we do not, as a race, deem everything that breaks the definition to be immoral.
Posted by JLS21 2 years ago
JLS21
When you ask, "Was Hitler wrong?" , specifically what do you mean by "wrong"? I'm assuming when we talk about morality, we are talking about what is "right" and "wrong". So what do we mean by "right" and "wrong"? I think that if these words are to have any meaning at all, then they are referring to how certain actions affect the well being of conscious creatures. For "well being" to have any useful meaning, I'd argue that it has something to do with physical and emotional health. So under that definition, we can say Hitler's actions were objectively immoral.

If you don't agree with this definition of morality, then how would you define it?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The ten commandments, seriously. The first four have nothing to do with morality and more to do with a god's ego. The last commandment has to do with though crimes. We should admit that god never gives us the freedom to follow the commandments we like and neglect the rest. Nor does god tell us that we can relax the penalties he has imposed for breaking them, which is death. This is why Christians follow there own morals and not there god's. The Jains do better with one commandment "do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being". You do not need a god to be moral you need reason.
Posted by DraftyBasilisk 2 years ago
DraftyBasilisk
I am arguing that we have personal beliefs, but these are not universal facts. The Nazi's believed that Hitler was right, even the Pope sent a letter to Hitler informing him of the Catholic Church's support. This alone means that Hitler being wrong is not a universal fact, only a belief. I am not saying that our beliefs have no meaning to us or the people around us, I am arguing that they are not fact.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
So was Hitler wrong?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DraftyBasiliskMelonnadeTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture