The Instigator
Con (against)
14 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Morals are objective.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,333 times Debate No: 12674
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)




I am negating the resolution that morals are objective.

Objective - absolute (ie killing is ALWAYS wrong)

My opponent is affirming that morals are objective. This means that things will be right or wrong always in every situation. As I mentioned earlier, a good example of an objective moral is that killing is wrong in every situation. I thank my opponent before hand for the debate. Good luck.


Hello I will be arguing pro for this debate, that morals are indeed objective.

I accept my opponents definition of the term objective meaning always and will now proceed to actually debate.

My opponent points obviously wishes for us to take a look at the statement 'killing is always wrong' being false to show that morality does not hold constant across time but sometimes changes. because obviously killing cannot be wrong when hunting game to sustain you life and your families life. even if you are a vegetarian with bio-centrist views that killing animals is as wrong as killing people you likely accept that killing may be moral in an execution or maybe in self defense or if by accident (it was not wrong for me to step on that bug, i didn't see it)

The problem is this is the fallacy of the strawman.
It is not a strawman because its something I didn't present as a case because that is perfectly understandable when I have presented nothing yet. it is a strawman because no one defending absolute morality would present it.

the objective absolute moral truth concerning killing is not 'killing is wrong' but very specifically 'killing is wrong without a warranted cause' you would find that statement to hold true always. all the scenarios that would justify killing would not qualify for this. true some forms of killing that most would agree are wrong may not qualify either, such as 'killing that was warranted by your unbridled rage' warranted taken loosely as 'provocation' in this instance. so we would explore to further define cases like and discover ANOTHER ABSOLUTE TRUTH in morality! 'killing is wrong if done because you are angry with the person alone' Note that I add, 'alone' as you would likely be nazies shooting you and your self defense or patriotism justify this killing sense your at war.

the killing that is wrong, is always wrong, objectively as my opponent has defined.

with all 'circumstances' you think would negate what is thought of as a general truth, you would find if you just took the time to spell it out legalistically like someone destined to work for the government, there will always be a specific absolute truth that is true always.

for example 'abortion is not immoral' may or may not be an absolute objective truth, but surely spelled out specifically for a given circumstance 'abortion is not immoral if both the baby and mother would die without doing it' for then by no definition would it really be thought of murder when its easy to see its a case were both could not be save. most agree that you are counted no less of a person if you save those you can and just let it go from your conscious those you couldn't.

why should we doubt that morality is objective because what that objective morality is dose not translate into a statement small enough to put on a bumper sticker? should I doubt that the wildlife I see outside my home like whitetail deer are not objectively what they are because the scientific definition doesn't fit on my bumper sticker? Imagine someone once told you deer are creatures with four legs, small tail, and two antlers. you could then argue that sometimes those are elk, or gazelles, depending where you are. so though the definition may have been nice and small like we want, and was generally correct that term was so wide that even Moose would qualify as deer. So it wasn't absolutely true. but the deer that are deer are absolutely deer no less.

Though I believe I have made my point; hear are some more examples

"it is okay to cut of peoples arms" to "its okay to cut of a persons arm if done to save their life."
"Adam it is wrong to eat of this tree" to "Adam its wrong to eat of this tree on your own will, if a bird eats of it and mistakes you for its young as you sleep with you mouth open you drooling Neanderthal, I will not condemn you for it."
"it is wrong to steal that orange" to "it is wrong to steal that orange if you can live without doing so, and you must also not have cash to purchase it."
"rape is wrong" to "rape is wrong for humans, animals don't know any better, and flowers cant reproduce unless a bee rapes them"

that is all for my opening round

and I hope my opponent does well or more specifically..........
"I hope my opponent does well at debating as long as its not enough to beat me, a very hard to earn victory is my highest desire" and mean that with absolute objectiveness.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Now I will go through my opponent's argument and present the problems with it, and explain why they actually show objective morality wrong.

morals: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character []

The main problem with my opponent's argument, is that it shows morality is not objective. This is, of course, only a problem for him, as it helps me completely. My opponent's argument is basically this:

When deciding whether an action is moral (right or wrong) one must look at the possible outcomes of the situation, decide which would have the best result, and the one with the better outcome is 'moral'. This is exactly my argument, because this doesn't explain objective morality, but situational morality.

An objective moral would be a moral that is wrong in any situation, no matter what. As stated twice earlier, an example would be killing a human being. To an objective moralist, killing a human being is always wrong, no matter what the context of the situation. It doesn't deal in the situation, just the behavior (see definition) of the person.

The situation itself only comes in to play when you remove the objective morals and replace them with situational ones. Then, you judge the situation depending on how the possible outcome may be. An objective moralist might say that eating pork is wrong, no matter what the situation. A situational moralist would analyze the situation and decide if eating pork is the right thing to do. Take this scenario:

"Gorge was told it is sinful to eat pork. He is faced one day by a man with a large chained up group of women following him. The man offers him some pork, and says that either he can eat this pork, and he'll let the women go, or otherwise he'll kill all of the women."

It's obvious in this situation that the moral thing to do would be to eat the pork showing at least the attempt to save the lives of the women. Let's take another situation:

"Gorge was told it is sinful to eat pork. He is one day faced with a man who says that if Gorge ever eats pork his son of 4 will be burned at the stake."

Once again, the moral choice, the right choice is completely obvious. He should choose not to eat pork because it would result in his son remaining safe, for a time.

I hope I have made my point, as I have repeated it probably way to many times. I don't have much more to say in this round, as I feel that my opponent's next argument is where we will really start to see some clash.

Before I go though, I have to say something about my opponent saying that: "a very hard to earn victory is [his] highest desire." I have to ask my opponent if this is really his highest desire. Would he rather die, or earn his victory? Probably earn the victory, right? Now would he rather live an extremely long, healthy, happy life, or win this victory? Probably the the former. I guess it just depends on the situation...right?


Some of you reading this debate may have picked up by now that both pro and con are both stressing the present importance of the situation or the scenario in any decision of morality. I would never deny this even though I am arguing pro.

But you see, 'situation morality' is not the opposite of 'objective morality', it merely play's a role in the specificness of the objective moral truth. 'situation morality' only means what the moral truth is will not be small enough to fit on your bumper sticker. Newtons laws of gravity will in common applications work as if its correct though it technically must be considered wrong because it doesn't apply everywhere in the universe; BUT that doesn't mean a universal rule for gravity doesn't exist that by its own laws express's itself in Newtons form on Earth.

But you have heard me claim that last round, and I would understand hesitation to believe that makes logical sense when the natural question to think because of this has yet to be answered, "if situation is not the opposite of objective morality (only a cause for its specificness), then what is the opposite?"
I will now tell you just what my opponent must defend to show that morality is not objective.

A non-objective absolute morality would be one where in the same situation or circumstances where to occur twice in the roe, the moral thing to do would be different. I would call this 'Chaotic Morality'. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to label it 'animal morality' or 'carnal morality' as our carnal impulses would likely be what defines what in the end we decide to be 'moral' as opposed to our reason.
A belief in Chaotic Morality mocks the very concept of morality if taken seriously, for if there are no consistent (which would mean objective) determining factors, then how can we say there is morality at all. In fact some on this website have argued there truly is no such thing, and not because of what we name 'morale' changing with the situation but because it changes with the person too.
You couldn't really prove Chaotic Morality, as it would by all means test the same as there being no real morality at all. unless of course you could identify the consistent SOURCE that creates the random determining factor of 'morality' that I will now call Z. Then we know morality is just a word to describe that source, like an insane god, aliens that are messing with you, or your hormone levels. But it must always be the same source, then the term 'morality' still carries meaning. It's the word you've chosen describe your hormone activity that you were never self aware enough to know on your own that's what that is. or it consistently might describe the alien probe sensational effects as it creates in you the notion that something is moral or immoral.
If its not always source Z though, then there is no morality, because then if asked why you are doing something and you say 'its the right thing to do' that's to say the same as 'I don't know' because it could be the alien, god, your hormone, or the conditioning from the torture your suffered that infrequently kicks in.

But we know morality is caused by consistent determining factors, just look at the first round of this debate, my opponent and I, are in large agreement about the standards of when killing is moral. we even both agree about circumstances affecting what is moral. yet we have grown up with different lives and different conditioning, yet the objective truth (objective hear meaning apart from our opinion) prevails to be recognized by both of us. For this to occur there must be more than just our animistic instincts to create a random variable to be "moral" for the moment for us, there needs to be something as true as fact that remains true even when I die.
Now you can expect there to be miner variation within a population of people about what is moral, but the fact that there is so much consistency in the view on with the level of agreement that does exist shows an objective fact. sometimes people are wrong about facts, sometimes confused, but their inaccuracy doesn't change the fact that their is a fact. And when their is a true objective fact involved it will bring with it its overwhelming consistences.
For example though the morality of something like abortion would be up for debate hear, what of the moral standard in behavior for you to 'give me some of your orange because I gave some of mine' or to 'leave him alone, he's not hurting anybody' you would likely argue that your situation does not qualify for those standards rather than say 'forget your standard'. Moral standards of behavior are indifferent facts and thus we cannot escape them so easily.

So to sum up my first round argument that my opponent did not address "just because it doesn't fit on your bumper sticker doesn't make it not objective"
to sum up this rounds; "Situation is not opposite of Objective or contradictory to it but is complementary to Objective Morality. Chaotic Morality is opposite to objective morality"
and last but not least "Chaotic Morality cannot be the case, as there is far too much consistency in morality to be so."

Though that is the core to my argument, I do not wish to have you bored by reading the same thing each round, so next round I will be arguing about the invisible third option.
Debate Round No. 2


Alright, first of all, I would like to mention that I don't completely understand the analogies my opponent is using. It seems likely from the way he writes that English is probably not his first language, and because of that the analogies he uses don't completely make sense. So I apologize if I miss a point my opponent made if it was done within the context of an analogy, just point out if I do, restate your argument, and I'll clarify. Also, I'll be jumping around and quoting my opponent.

My opponent does not actually understand what he is supposed to be affirming, and what I am supposed to be opposing.

"my opponent and I, are in large agreement about the standards of when killing is moral. we even both agree about circumstances affecting what is moral."

It is not I that was agreeing with you, but you with me. My point was that you weren't arguing for objective morality, but something else entirely different that's called situational morality. My opponent states the correct premises in involved in situational morality, but incorrectly calls it objective morality. I understand my opponent said they were the same thing, and I'll get to that next, but it's very important that you realize what morality actually is. As I said earlier, morality is concerned with the behavior if a being. Objective morality is taking this completely literally. For instance, in a place of void where there is nothing but the being itself, there is still the capability of morality, because of how the being behaves. In objective morality, the situation at hand does not change how the person should behave. It does not realize what the greater good might be, and is strictly about how the being acts. This is objective morality. Situational morality is how a being should behave in a GIVEN SITUATION. I upper-cased that last part to make it clear that that's what situation morality adds to the equation. It gives the being a different way it should act per situation. This is usually dependent on the greater good, but it could also be for the greater bad. That depends on the beings understood morality.

"But you see, 'situation morality' is not the opposite of 'objective morality'"

As Con, it is not my place to necessarily affirm the opposite of what you affirm. It is my duty to negate what you affirm, and show why it is incorrect. Finding an opposite is not necessary, and actually impossible. Some things there just isn't an opposite for, much like there is no opposite to objective morality. For instance, banana has no opposite. Neither does television, airplane, or gasoline. A lot of concepts also don't have opposites, like time. So to say again, I must simply negate what my opponent says, and show why it's wrong. I am obviously negating it, and have shown it is wrong. I am not affirming there is chaotic morality, animalistic morality, or any other kind of ridiculous opposite my opponent tries to procure.

So, I realize this has been a rather short refutation, but I feel it's all that was needed. I have shown that my opponent is in no way affirming objective morality. He is, in fact, affirming situational morality, and naming it something different. There is not much more to say on the matter, and I sincerely hope my opponent will present a case for objective morality before trying to present the a case for some invisible third party.

Regarding morality on a bumper sticker argument, I'm not quite sure what this means. Explain?


"As I said earlier, morality is concerned with the behavior if a being."

I quote the above to briefly make the viewing audience aware that I am not the only one who types like he is from the Dixiland. I would also like to ask you to learn from my example that it is a myth that spell check will hide the fact that you spell like you from the South.

Like my opponent I believe I shall jump around too this round as I think the 'opposite' issue must be settled first.

Whether some things have opposites or not it doesn't matter. What matters is that because 'situation' morality is not the opposite of 'objective' then it does not contradict it and if it does not contradict it does not negate it. If Chaotic Morality were true then that would contradict and thus negate Objective Morality. Because ‘Situation' morality does not inherently contradict objective morality it may considered part of it.

Let me ask this about the question of 'situations'. Why is it that only the 'situations' like 'killing a bug, or killing a person' are charged against the doctrine of objective morality and not the difference in the 'situation' of 'killing or lying'?
It would never occur to you that morality is not objective because in some circumstances it makes you consider if its okay to lie and some to kill; Because you smart enough to see (most of you anyway) that its only a different part of the laws of morality, a different article, clause, paragraph, ect... to cover a different thing concerning the issue of morality. And the difference in lying and killing is like the difference in Articles of our moral codes of behavior. And if that does not bother us then how could it possible be worth any note that their are different clauses in this code of behavior (killing you cause I have to as opposed to killing you cause I feel like it)?

My ‘bumper sticker' statement is about the complexity of real objective truths. But complex truths don't fit on bumper stickers; you would have to make a less accurate general statement to represent the objective truth. When we are taught the classic moral codes of behavior at a young age, they do this to the complex truths so that the children watching Barney & friends can understand it in a simpler form.
The only justification for expecting ‘situation' to negate ‘objective' is because one must in someway still expect objective truth to be as simple as it is on Sesame Street. This is all pointing out the ‘situation' does for morality, it makes it more complex. But just because it is more complex does not mean it is less objective.

So I say, once you boil down your moral statement to include all the complex clauses and sub-paragraphs made by considering situations, you will find that statement to ALWAYS be true. And if you will turn you attention to my opponents round one definition of objective you will see the capitalized defining term for that is ALWAYS. So if the moral is ALWAYS true then it is objective for this debate and the resolution is affirmed. It doesn't matter if its not a simple moral that isn't ALWAYS true.

Even if I broke down and let go that's how my opponent defined objective round one (witch I under NO circumstances do) and viewed it as to mean incompatible with ‘situation' morality there is still a few problems there. And it comes back to the complexity of the moral truths.
Instead of further defining "killing is wrong" to "killing is wrong when…" it can be better defined "murder is wrong."
The moral became more specific without considering the situation. Killing can be defined as any action that ends the life of something else, while murder brings with it's definition an indicated intent of the heart. Thus we have to accept in light of this that the strict definition of the immoral act itself is ALWAYS immoral regardless of your ‘situation'.
I call this the invisible third option, because its like answering question with to options given with a third one you where not given. "Are you going to believe what republicans believe or democrats?" 3rd Option Answer "how about the best of both".

I realize up until now I have only negated opponents argument for negating the resolution, I have still yet to present a Pro argument myself. I should probably do that now.

As I showed in round two, Chaotic Morality is more or less the same as no morality existing at all, so if there is any morality it must be objective (complex or simple). So a pro case for morality at all is all will be enough to support the resolution. But for this debate can we feel assured that morality does exist?

Yes we can, because as you read my opponent insist we keep in mind that morality is concerned with behavior. Specifically as Cons labels morality as a 'standard' of behavior. calling it a 'law' of human behavior has been used as well in defining morality but 'standard' 'law' and 'code' describe what we are talking about equally well. So asking is the question 'is there morality?' as all the terms have been defined and accepted in this debate by both sides is the same as asking 'is there a standard of behavior?' So is there a standard?
Obviously! anyone with even a vague grasp of world history would see that there is a standard of morality or "code of decent behavior" stretching across different cultures with a relative consistency

So there is a standard of morality! and it cannot be Chaotic so it must be Objective! unless off-course my opponent can provide an invisible third option I am not seeing that we have not already refuted. But I am betting he will not even if he can think of one. After only one round to present that option and no chance to defend it? That's rather a lot for any average debater to do; If I were in Cons shoes I would stick with arguing 'situation' morality as that third option even though I have shown its existence doesn't negate or contradict object morality but is encompassed by it, because with enough repetition you can make an illogical position sound correct in the face reasoning being given against it. It's a brilliant and powerful debate tactic; But all I can do to counter it is ask you, the voting reading audience, to ignore the fact that for the third time Con will repeat that I have been defending the Con position, in fact ignore the fact that I have been repetitious in any points, like how objective morality should not be expected to fit on bumper stickers. Just consider just what all the points have been given and how they seem to add up in this debate. and I do mean this debate, please do not consider points that neither of us brought up or argued for from other debates or you personal view of the subject, only from this debate. Then the fact that Con has been repetitious should not cover the true logic of the points in this debate.

So to sum up this round;
1) if its not opposite, it doesn't contradict, thus doesn't negate.
2) if you boil it down to the single clause and paragraph of the law of moral behavior that applies before... applying it, you'll see its true ALWAYS.
3) It being true ALWAYS was the definition given and agreed to at the start of this debate.
4) Even if we thought the situation changes fact two, theirs always a third way to boil down the law (killing is wrong to murder is wrong) that also will apply ALWAYS even if the situation changed and we thought that meant something like Con.
5) Chaotic Morality is the same as no morality, if there is morality its objective.
6) there is clearly a standard of behavior throughout the world. So there is morality, a code of behavior.

and with that I am done for Round 3.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent started his argument off with a quote of my words, and then quickly insulted them. I said this: "As I said earlier, morality is concerned with the behavior if a being." My opponent then claimed that I was 'from the South' and implied that spell-check was the only reason I appeared fluent in English. Notice that if you change the word 'if' to the word 'of' then the sentence makes perfect sense. The reason why I wrote 'if' was because I made a typing error. The 'i' is directly next to the 'o', and whilst typing I pressed the wrong key and didn't realize it. So I would just like to make it clear that I am very fluent in English, that people from the South (which I actually am) don't talk like the stereotypical rednecks, and finally that I simply made a typing error. Now that this is out of the way, let's go on to the points that actually affect the debate.

*You aren't affirming the opposite*

My opponent does not seem to understand the argument, and I'm not so sure that he ever will. So, I'll restate it in a way that he promotes, which is to find why our two views are opposites. Objective morality declares that people should behave in a certain way REGARDLESS OF SITUATION. Situational morality (hence the name) declares that a person should behave in a way ACCORDING TO THE SITUATION. As you can see, my opponent's view does NOT use the situation, and CAN'T include it, while my view necessitates the situation. These are obviously OPPOSITE views. Because they are opposite, it should be clear to my opponent that I am not affirming objective morality, but directly clashing with the view.

*Situations and Doctrine*

I stated earlier that I didn't understand some of my opponent's points, and this is another one I don't quite understand what he is saying. Perhaps he is saying that the doctrine declaring the moral law declares when it is ok to do certain actions. While this is probably true, and it is objective law, it does not make the morals within objective. In fact, if the doctrine talks about what is wrong in what sense (as in it's wrong to kill a person for desire) then this accounts for the situation. Accounting for the situation makes it what kind of morality? That's right, situational morality.

*Bumper sticker*

Once again, my opponent tries to explain the argument. This time he states that objective moral law actually is infinitely complex, and covers all situations. This actually makes no sense. It's clearly situational. If morals were objective in the sense my opponent proposes, then there would be an infinite amount of morals (as per situation.) It's obvious that this can't be the case, as no human could ever be expected to know an infinite amount of moral/immoral actions. Morality concerns itself with how a being SHOULD behave. If that being can't learn all the laws, then that law could never be successful. So, objective morality isn't the optimal answer. Just in case that appeared as a non-sequitur, I'll write a syllogism.

1. Morality struggles do understand how a being(human) should optimally behave.
2. If there is an objective moral rule for every situation, and situations are infinite, then there is an infinite amount of moral rules.
3. No human can learn an infinite amount of anything.
4. If all the rules aren't understood, then the human might not know how to behave in many situations.
5. Optimally, a human should know how to behave in all situations.
6. Situational morality allows the human to choose based on a finite amount of obvious outcomes.
7. Situational morality allows for a human to ALWAYS know right and wrong, and therefore is more optimal then objective morality.

*the moral is ALWAYS true then it is objective*

Wrong. I just talked about this, but I'll summarize again. Morality deals with human behavior, and humans can't learn the infinity of situations that could happen. Because a human can't learn them, they can't behave by them. At least, not the kind of objective morality my opponent described, in which the answer to every situation is objective.

*immoral act itself is ALWAYS immoral regardless of your ‘situation'.*

Aha! Now my opponent is talking like an objective moralist! He stated that murder (killing with intent of heart) is ALWAYS WRONG. No matter what. I realize this next situation might be ridiculous, but it is nevertheless possible, and only situational morality can account for how to act. Situation: You are told to do A, or B will happen.

A) Kill an innocent man.

B) Every woman will die.

So, in A, you are murdering someone, and if you choose not to murder him, you aren't actually doing anything. BUT, every woman on earth is going to die as a result of your choice. In this situation, the moral thing to do would be to act according to whatever will most likely bring the most favorable end. Which would be what? Ah yes, murdering the innocent man.

*third option*

Regarding my opponent showing his 'third option', I don't actually understand it at all. It sound just like what he was supposed to be affirming. So, either it WAS what he was supposed to be affirming and I refuted it OR it was unrelated and I had no duty to clash with it.

*the affirmative case... in the third round out of four...*

"As I showed in round two, Chaotic Morality is..."

Once again, I am not advocating Chaotic Morality. I am not denying the existence of morality. I agree there is morality, I just believe that it's situational, and I have shown why. My opponent three paragraphs that supposedly 'proved' objective morality merely showed while morality exists. I agree that morality exists, as stated. So, my opponent has yet to show why Objective morality is preferable to Situational Morality.


1. Objective morality doesn't account for a situation. Situational does, and assures that the end will be a good one.

2. If there was a moral law for every situation that was unchanging, it would be up to the human to learn every single one of these infinite laws (which isn't possible)

3. Situational Morality conflicts the resolution, and has been shown to be more effective.

That is the break down of the important parts of this debate, and that is why I urge you to vote Con. Thank you.

PS, to my opponent. I wasn't insulting when I said English wasn't your first language. This is honestly what I thought. I apologize if I offended you.


Yes, I know it was a typo, that's what we rednecks make sometimes. I don't know how my opponent thought I was implying anything about his grammar with the spell check comment. He poked at my spelling by saying English wasn't my first language, So I admitted that I spell like a redneck and tried to give you all the warning who have similar difficulties in making yourself care enough to English the proper way, spell check will not hide that as it has failed to hide it for me. To quote Foxworthy (video 5:50) you cant poke at rednecks unless you are one and ‘I are one'. So I am allowed to correct my opponent when he said ‘people from the south don't talk like stereotypical rednecks' yes they do, I live here and can assure you all that's exactly how we talk.
So anyway, please have mercy with the spelling and grammar vote, my point was he made mistakes too, like me, doesn't that justify a tie?

On to arguing for the point that matters, the argument point.

As I predicted my opponent closed still defending ‘situational' morality as incompatible with objective morality. To do so he has tried two things
1)Make you believe he defined objective at the start of this debate as ‘regardless of the situation' by putting it in capital letters.
2)Argue that the Objective morality I describe is infinitely complex and therefore unreasonable for people to know.

1) is simply false. Scroll up for yourself to the top of this debate and you find where he defined objective.
Objective - absolute (ie killing is ALWAYS wrong)
Now, I have been capitalizing ALWAYS every time I used it last round (& shall continue to this final round) to further draw attention to this fact. Since my opponent didn't include ‘regardless of the situation' in that definition, if it can be said to account for the situation while remaining possible in some context to say its ALWAYS wrong or right then for this debate it can be said to be objective.
Now either wording of the definition (ALWAYS or regardless of the situation) is incorrect. We are already giving him leeway over that, can he really expect us to give him anymore to change ALWAYS to mean regardless of the situation?

The main difficulty with 2) is that it forgets how we actually practice ‘doing the right thing'. It doesn't matter if it is infinitely complex it wouldn't matter. That would only mean we will likely never be able to write the code of decent behavior in accurate legalistic terms for ourselves. The actual practice has always been ‘listening to your gut.' It can have an infinitely complex method for determining morality and you not need to know it, just know how to listen. You never think through ‘is murder wrong' you simply ‘know' it is.
Even ignoring this though, I didn't describe objective morality as infinitely complex, and I don't see how my opponent could. I said the addition of considering the situation would make it more complex, so if it's that addition that makes the law of morality infinitely complex then so is ‘situation' morality. Situation morality brought complexity to the table, so if that complexity negates it for the reasons Con gave then the kind of Objective morality he has been arguing against would be the preferable one wouldn't it, as its simple enough to not consider the situation.

When I said ‘third option' that was regarding bringing "‘murder is wrong' as opposed to ‘killing is wrong'" to the table of this debate. You did provide rebuttal to it so don't worry, it appears you understood it fine.
Well, almost fine anyway; you missed the point of the argument. To refute ‘murder is always wrong' my opponent gave this set of choices.
A) Kill an innocent man.
B) Every woman will die.
I could give the exact same two options and it would equally refute ‘lying is always wrong' Doing A or B does not provide you an opportunity to lie, and it also doesn't for murder. It gives a choice for a just ‘killing' but not murder because murder indicates a particular intent of heart. Killing the innocent man with this intent of heart would indicate you are ‘sacrificing' him, not murdering. You can only have a scenario where it wrong to kill to create the circumstances that say the intent of heart made the killing murder. Some intents of killing can make it sacrifice, some desire for victory, some self-preservation. The fact that the man in option A is innocent changes none of this thus non-sequential The only person who should leave that scenario with a guilty conscious is the mad scientist that had you kill him or he would unleash his woman killing virus on the world.
So you see even that extreme situation failed to make the act truly ‘murder.'

I know my opponent doesn't support chaotic morality, but to present a pro to 'Objective' as Con defined it round one, I need to address the only thing that by definition cannot be 'Objective' as defined round one and that would be chaotic morality, which is the same as no morality. So any case to show their is morality at all would be Pro 'Objective' as objective was defined round one by Con. So in order to give a Pro for 'Objective' as defined round I had to bring it up. The fact that Con chooses to agree with the statement 'morality' exist is his prerogative but for this debate it should be considered that the point remains uncontested. So if you are a moral nihilist, even though you may think my case for morality stinks, the case is an uncontested one in this debate and you should vote accordingly.
The only point that Con has contested is that Situation morality cannot be encompassed by Objective morality and must be considered a completely different standard. As Con defined 'objective' round one, I have contended it can be included, Con has contended it cant.

So in summery:
1) We both made some typing errors, please vote tie on that.
2) Putting REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION in capital letters doesn't change the fact that that is not what he put for "objective's" definition Round 1.
3) Put in the same situation twice, you'll find the moral thing to do is ALWAYS the same, witch was what Con put in round 1 as objectives definition. so in some legalistic sense you can still call 'situation' morality an objective one. The 2 are not exclusive to each other.
4) If the objective morality I describe is 'infinitely' complex then so is situation morality because the factor that changed the conception of objective morality from simple to complex was the inclusion of 'situation' morality.
5) Granted 4) is the case then it is 'situation' morality that is too complex and an 'objective' one that excludes it that is reasonable for people to know.
6) Even if the rules of morality were infinity complex, the art of complying with would not be more complex than 'listing to your gut'
7) Even the most extreme ridiculous scenario (as Con has just proved) could not changed the intent of killing in murder to a just one, as it will always provide another intent on it's own.
8) The morality of the physical act may change with situation but the morality of the intent never does.

Those are the 8 things I needed to say this round, and it is where we are left standing after considering all that was brought up in THIS DEBATE and NOT OTHERS. Moral nihilist please try to keep that in mind when you vote. It's not like Con has been arguing your case either, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to resist vote bombing.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
Pro doesn't do that Sadolite........
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
Pro goes off the deep end in the last round by discussing rednecks. totally and completly irrelevant
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
Wow, I didn't know morals still existed
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
even had you said murder, the context of what defined the killing was 'sacrifice' so I took nothing out of context.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 7 years ago
Taking an opponent's words out of context to support your argument is generally looked down on. (I said 'kill' and innocent man at first, but in the explanation clearly defined it as murder.)
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
I was about to round 2 but then I remembered that Mr_Jack_Nixon definition of (always) needed a different apologetic than for the normal definition of objective (more than a state or mind, self-delusion that's just people's opinion on the matter) morality.

don't worry though charle15, I put one in round 3.
Posted by charles15 7 years ago
Marauder said: "For this to occur there must be more than just our animistic instincts to create a random variable to be "moral" for the moment for us, there needs to be something as true as fact that remains true even when I die."

Marauder, I agree with you that morals are objective. But you have failed to give the reason WHY morals are objective. What makes morals true as fact?
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
I love you sign off for round 2. very tasteful. ;)
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 7 years ago
And they have.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
That is not the usual meaning of "objective." "Objective" usually means something like "derivable by unbiased logic from what is observable." Thus, "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is a claim to objective morality. However, it's fair to define the term anyway one wishes for the purposes of a debate.

The resolution amounts to "morality is unambiguous and absolute." Is there anyone who agrees with that? Many, maybe most, religions have parables presenting examples of moral rules in conflict, so it would seem to be a rare position. We'll see if anyone takes the debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by XOXMSperfect 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by hprulz 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wesswll 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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