The Instigator
SNP1
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Rabid.Penguin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Morals are objective

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 2 votes the winner is...
SNP1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,054 times Debate No: 46787
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

SNP1

Con

Are morals objective? I do not believe that is true. Can Pro make a case for objective morality? Will I be able to make a case that they are not? We shall find out.

Rules:
1. No insults
2. Stay on topic
3. Burden of proof is on both
4. Follow the following format for the debate

Format:
Round 1- Acceptance.
Rounds 2 & 3- You can bring up your points/arguments and rebuttals.
Rounds 4 & 5- No new points/arguments.
Round 4- Rebuttal of previous points/arguments.
Round 5- If need of more rebuttals, make them. Include a conclusion to your case.

Let the debate begin!
Rabid.Penguin

Pro


I'm not a formal debator, but I will do my best to present my case. Thanks for the forum to get both of our thoughts on this matter out there. I will also do my best to respond to each round in a timely manner. I've been quite busy lately, but I think I can manage.

You didn't post any definitions so allow me to post them and you can feel free to agree or disagree with these definitions.

Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

There is more than one branch of moral objectivism. Moral realism is the definition that I'll be arguing for.

Moral Realism: The meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.

My opponent will be arguing for Moral Relativism.There are also different branches of Moral Relativism. I will define each and my opponent will let us know which he is arguing for.

Descriptive: holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral.
Meta-Ethical: holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.
Normative: holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

If my opponent is merely arguing for moral relativism in a descriptive sense, then I'm not sure we have an argument. Obviously people can disagree on things. But from our past discussions I think he will at least be arguing from a meta-ethical standpoint. But I'll leave that to my opponent to say.

People have been arguing about this topic for thousands of years, and I'm not expert so let's see what comes of this :p


http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
SNP1

Con

I do not think that there is no such thing as moral rights and wrongs, I think that everyone has a different set of beliefs on what is right and wrong. I do not believe that either side is an absolute though, but that laws and actions are usually determined by the most popularly shared moralities.

So, does morality exist? Well, people seem to have a sense of what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong, so morality does exist. How do we decide what is moral? If they are objective, then by what standards?

Simply, morals are subjective. They are dependent on how you are raised, what is around you, etc. This is caused by an important development that we have, empathy.

Empathy was important in the development of mammals as the need to care for babies is a priority with mammals. With empathy we learn to understand and share the feelings of another. So, what happens when you start to understand and share feelings with another? The golden rule forms, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself," also stated like, "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." Morality is not that much of a jump from this.

Let's say morals have not formed yet. I do not want to die, you do not want me to take your stuff. We then agree not to kill and not to steal. Let's say I meet someone I like, I want to be cared for, they want to be cared for, so we decide to care for each other.

So, how do they become morals? We want to (or do not want to) be treated a certain way, so we treat others the way we would want to be treated. This is why morals seem to be different over the world. In some places polygamy is immoral while in other places it is perfectly acceptable.

So why does murder, rape, stealing, etc. seem to be immoral all across the globe? Because they are issues that are easily agreed upon by people. They just happen to be some issues that are agreed upon by a large majority of the population, but they are not held by everyone. Some people do not find murder immoral, some do not find rape immoral, and so on with other morals.

But how can we tell that morals are subjective and not objective? Well, we must look at the world around us.

We look and see people have morals, so we must decide if they are objective or subjective. If they are objective that means that one of the answers on questions of morality would be correct, but how do we know they are? Judging them based on our own morals? Doesn't that just prove that those morals are shared between the parties involved? We must also try and find out by which standards are things moral/immoral, but we can find none. We have nothing to support that morals are in fact objective. When we find nothing to show objective morality is correct we must look again at the people.

What do see in people's moral codes? You see people with different moral codes, expected when morals are subjective. We see that there are even people that do not agree with the common moral beliefs, which also makes sense with subjective morals. We also see that certain questions on if something is moral or not cannot be answered and supported (example, is homosexuality moral or immoral).

So why should we believe that morals are subjective? The moral codes of people fit with the structure of subjective morality while there is nothing to support an objective morality.

Source:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
Rabid.Penguin

Pro

Rabid.Penguin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SNP1

Con

All points extended
Rabid.Penguin

Pro

Rabid.Penguin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SNP1

Con

Points extended
Rabid.Penguin

Pro

Rabid.Penguin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SNP1

Con

Well, this was a boring debate, but it is still a debate. Vote Con!
Rabid.Penguin

Pro

Rabid.Penguin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
:-p
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Maybe some other time. My mind is not really in the mood for a debate on morality.
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
SNP1, would you like to debate this again with me instead sometime? I subscribe to Sam Harris' point of view on morality, that it can be objective, in case you were interested.
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
lol. Glad I could help =p :)
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Ya, but at least this will help me get to the 3 debates needed in order to vote on debates
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
Yeah... I'm really sorry. I've just had so much going on lately... usually my life is pretty uneventful lol, but when it rains it pours...
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
I'm terrible :( unfortunately with 3 hours left in the round, I'm not going to have time to post my opening arguments as we have a really big deadline to meet at work today. I may have to schedule the debate for another time, and you can just copy and paste your round 2 arguments into the next debate. I should have a bit more time to focus on it next week.

Sorry again :( I was looking forward to it. You can consider this a forfeit on my part. I'll send you a PM next week when I've got a bit more free time... it won't let me add you as a friend... This site has been acting up on me lately :p
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
lol, thank you. I have been busier than usually lately as well. Hopefully this debate will turn out alright with both sides being busy.
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
That's alright. It came out pretty good for typing on your phone. Usually when I type out stuff on my phone it comes out like "Penis fish for dinner?" I try not to text people.
Posted by Rabid.Penguin 3 years ago
Rabid.Penguin
It's ok. I almost forgot you challenged me :p I've been busier than usual these last couple weeks. Thanks for your clarification. I'm following you now though :) I'll try to post my opening statements/arguments tonight after work.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
SNP1Rabid.PenguinTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
SNP1Rabid.PenguinTied
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: Pro forfeited the majority of the debate. Con wins argument and conduct.