The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Morals are biased and heavily influenced by the opinion of the majority.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 386 times Debate No: 88568
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I wish the contender good luck. (This is more of a debate on philosophical standpoints rather than raw facts and evidence.)

I believe that morals are biased and are based completely on a person's own definition of good and bad. Let's say that I am a robber who has recently stolen another's personal property. If I were to have stolen something famous, such as the mona lisa, and were to have escaped, I would label said situation as favorable. According to the Merriam Webster defintion of good, "a (1) : of a favorable character or tendency <good news> (2) : bountiful, fertile <good land>(3) : handsome, attractive <good looks>" this situation would be "good" for the robber. However, based on society's views on said robbery, it would seem unfavorable to the majority, thereby defining it as the opposite of good, also known as bad. Using this example, the idea of morals would be based on the viewpoint, the robber's defintion of "right" or good being different than that of the majority's.


Debate Accepted.

-->>As there's only three rounds, I will begin my outlining my opening argument in this round--then proceed with rebuttals and closing arguments within the next two. As Con, I will be arguing against the resolution: that morals are biased and heavily influenced by the opinions of the majority.

==Opening Case==

In order to offer some clarification, the definition(s) of 'morals' is as follows:

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

3. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong.

4. a particular system of values and principles of conduct.

Firstly, it's important to establish where 'morals' actually come from--#4 specifically states that there is a correlation between morals and the conscience of a human being; and their sense of right and wrong. In addition to that, morals extend beyond the personal feelings of the individual. For example, just because someone has chosen to ignore certain moral standards, it doesn't necessarily mean that these standards are subjective and dependant on what the perception of the said individual is. If someone commits a crime (in Pros case, a robbery.), just because they are not following a widely accepted moral (that stealing is wrong) it does not automatically devalue that moral or indeed suggest that it is 'biased' in some way--essentially, morals are not based on ones own definition of what is 'good' and 'bad', but are a specific set of principles that cannot be done or undone by personal opinion.

The point is to demonstrate that people cannot objectively determine what their own morals are and how they apply them; these morals are established, and a person can either follow them or not.

In terms of how morals are influenced by the opinions of the majority--again, this is largely incorrect; as opinion is a different thing to morality. Opinions vary all the time are not based on or in adherence to any one set of rules or standards. Whereas morality is, as #4 states, a particular system of values and principles; values and principles that are to be applied to the benefit of society and interest of the human race: they are not simply interchangeable opinions, but ethics that people can accept or reject--however, cannot alter.

Debate Round No. 1


purplesnower forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


purplesnower forfeited this round.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LittleDreamer 6 months ago
Conscience is such a concept that must be refined by the individual. There is definitely a sense of collective agreement and disagreement when it comes to what's right and what's wrong in a society as a whole, and then there are individual viewpoints such as those. It definitely varies from one person to another depending on their circumstances, upbringing, lifestyle, environment etc. and I have witnessed such variations myself in personal life too. I would however say that there are limits to such thinking, since there will always be differences in opinions between people and there would be those who'd try to guide those who they may think are on the 'wrong' path. Some sense of regret in the other person's mind verifies our thought-process, as that is how people learn to accommodate themselves in society. Our minds are wired to feel 'nice' to when we do a good deed and the other vice-versa, that won't change unless we've convinced ourselves that we've seen enough of the world or have a serious screw loose. Thus, a person who's devoid of the traditionally accepted concept of morals may feel more or less like an outcast and have awareness of it. Ergo, there will always be a universally accepted set of morals.
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 7 months ago
And who has burden of proof?

The one who must prove their side?
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 7 months ago
Go easy?
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
I don't think you mean "morals" themselves are biased so much as society's *interpretation* of "morality" and the like.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
even the most powerfull king finds that he is not god
Posted by raskuseal 7 months ago
It looks like he has the idea pretty well down. I believe that the only difference between right and wrong is who the action benefits. Something along those lines, anyways.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.