The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Batman3773
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Morality is subjective

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 65771
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

This will be a Devil's advocate debate for me. Here are some key definitions that you must accept before agreeing to the debate. If any of these are problematic leave a comment and I'll change them if need be.

Subjective: true depending on opinion.

Objective: always true regardless of opinion.

Morality: a system of good and bad or right and wrong behavior.

Morally good: behavior that we ought to do.

Morally bad: behavior that we ought not to do.

My opponent will argue that morality is objective. Shared burden of proof. Good luck to my opponent.

First round is for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
Benshapiro

Pro

Moral inconsistency:

Morality varies wildly from person to person and from society to society. Societies make laws that are based on ethics and ethics are derived from morality. By comparing what different societies accept as lawful concerning ethical or moral issues, this will indicate whether humans have an objective or subjective sense of morality. We can do this because societies are just a large collection of individuals with either subjective of objective moral sense. Here in the U.S. lawmakers believe that child marriage is unethical or immoral but in Yemen it's a perfectly acceptable practice. Back in ancient Israel it was morally permissible to stone your son or daughter for disobedience. In the Aztec civilizations it was morally acceptable to sacrifice people to the Aztec gods. In Ancient Rome is was acceptable for society to watch people to kill each other for their own amusement in the gladiator arenas. If morality is objective, or doesn't depend on the opinion of anyone to decide whether something is indefinitely right or wrong, why is there so much obvious subjectivity here?

Naturalistic fallacy:

A naturalistic fallacy is one where a value is assumed to inherently desirable when it actually isn't. There is a difference between saying (1) this medicine will bring you back to health and (2) you ought take this medicine. The first statement is factual and the second statement is an opinion. There can't be any objective moral values because what we ought to do can't be inherently determined since it depends on what the individual wants. In the medicine example, maybe the person wishes to die and doesn't want to accept the medicine.

Sociopaths:

There are numerous people that evidently don't show any commonly shared morality no matter what society they live in. If there's always this deviation from even the subjective norm, how could it still be true that the sociopath ought not to do what he thinks he ought to do?

Incoherency of moral truths:

"It's true that you ought not to lie". How can this "truth" be positively tested for that we ought not to do this? There isn't any. Objective moral truth statements are incoherent.

So in sum, morality is evidently subjective, objective morality suffers from incoherency and the naturalistic fallacy as well as people who have no concept of what they ought or ought not to do such as sociopaths. Over to you con.
Batman3773

Con

I'd like to open by stating that all people have a moral compass that is 100% objective. Second we know that what we ought and ought not to do from the bible has it plainly gives us unarguable, and complete moral rules. To sum all people whether they want to accept it or not have morality. Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Benshapiro

Pro

My opponent drops all of my contentions and never addressed them.

He says that we have a moral compass that is 100% objective but doesn't give any reason why. He uses the Bible to ground morality but this is flawed. Clearly people who haven't read or disagree with the Bible are still moral and have a sense of what they ought and ought not to do. There are more reasons why the Bible is a poor candidate for grounding any supposed objective morality (genocide, infanticide, slavery, etc).

This has been a brief debate but good luck to my opponent.
Batman3773

Con

I begin my concluding argument like this I answered every question that my oppent asked, and disproved his entire argument. Also the bible is a very credible source and remember it was written in a time when slavery was acceptable, and they only preformed genocide on those who opposed them. To conclude everyone whether or not you believe in the bible as my oppent stated you have morality which is why morality is 100% objective.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Morally good: behavior that we ought to do. Morally bad: behavior that we ought not to do.
By definition, ought is only a probability not an absolute, there for it can't be objective.
For morals to be objective they have to be based in reason, as reason is an absolute.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
your definitions made it impossible to be objective.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Pro, I would like to argue the Con position. Would you be willing to challenge me? Looking for someone who actually wishes to debate. You at least present some arguments. Think we could have a good back and forth.
Posted by Batman3773 2 years ago
Batman3773
Not really
Posted by miraculous 2 years ago
miraculous
What ? I thought it was self explanatory that morality is subjective.
Some people just debate on anything haha.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
BenshapiroBatman3773Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A much more complete case given by Pro, and Con never really addressed Pro's case.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
BenshapiroBatman3773Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never refuted Pro.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
BenshapiroBatman3773Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con drops pretty much all of pro's contentions
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
BenshapiroBatman3773Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I believe I can make a successful argument that morality is objective. However, Con fails to make arguments. This site is a debate site, arguments must be made. Pro gets better conduct for making an argument. Pro gets points in the argument since Con doesn't make one.