The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
mrsatan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Objective Morality

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 2 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,319 times Debate No: 35624
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Mikal

Con

One of the major questions that I have recently come to deal with is considering the fact that there is no such thing as objective morality. Some Believers and even no believers strong digress, and take the position that morality is objective or that there is some type of universal truth. I believe morality is determined by culture, experience, and experiences.
mrsatan

Pro

Let me begin by thanking Mikal for proposing this debate. It's an interesting topic, and one that I have put much thought into recently. As I am Pro, and making the initial arguments, I will use my last round strictly for rebuttal and conclusions.

That said, I firmly believe that morality is objective. While the way we integrate it into our society and general lives is subjective, any action has an innate value of either moral or immoral.

Definitions (As agreed on by Con and myself)

Morality (Noun):
1.Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior
2.Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles

Principle (noun):
1.A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning
2.A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior

Fundamental
(Adjective): Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance
(Noun): A central or primary rule or principle on which something is based

Opening Argument:

In regards to the core of what morality is, I see it as a very simply concept. It can be generally summed up by a common phrase that the majority of us have probably heard at some point:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

In other words, to relate that specifically to what is and isn't a moral action:

An immoral action is any action that is hurtful to any person, if that person has not consented to that action. A moral action would then be any action that is not immoral.

By this rule, it would not be difficult to judge the morality of any action. However, as I said earlier, there is still subjectivity in how we integrate morality into our society. When considering two separate immoral actions, subjectivity lies in which is the greater moral offense. But regardless of that decision, both actions are still immoral.

I will leave it at that for now, and pass the reins over to Con, as I am looking forward to seeing what arguments he puts forth.

Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

I thank you for taking the time to post your world view on this matter, and with precise and providing us on the definition of the terms we will be using throughout this debate. I will use your definition and add another to it to make up the entity of what we will be discussing.

Definition of OBJECTIVE

a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence "used chiefly in medieval philosophy

Morality (Noun):
1.Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior
2.Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles

So when we ask the question is there such as thing as objective morality we are asking, is there "principles concerning the distinction of right and wrong existing without consideration of independent existence" That is a lot to take in and hard to understand. It is basically stating that there are overlying rules that exist within nature. We are saying that when one commits murder, and even though it is acceptable by the society he is in, he is wrong because there is a sort of universal Guide line.

I will keep my opening opinion short and simple and respond to the rebuttal that pro will offer. I believe that morality is not objective at all. I would even say that there is no such thing as objective morality. As my opposition stated in his opening statement. " there is still subjectivity in how we integrate morality into our society". The subjective of accepting those morals that he is referring to is the exact definition of what morality is in itself.

Morality itself is complete subjective depending on ones culture, location, religion, and experiences within life. Where as we living in america and some of the more blessed parts of the world see murder as wrong, someone in some of the bad parts of Africa or any other of the less evolved parts of the world may see it as a way of life. The same came be said about rape, incest, and any other argument one can present. All of this is acceptable within the animal kingdom so what makes it wrong within our society. The question is, is it really wrong? or maybe even what is wrong? Depending on where you are raised your definition of morality will have an entirely different meaning as I have stated earlier. Even within the states my definition of right and wrong will not line up with how my opposition sees right and wrong. So the main question here is there a guideline by which our morals are judged? I believe there is not. This is a bold statement and I am aware it is unpopular but it in fact is true. Take for example how we perceive morality and right and wrong now. If Hitler would have won his campaign and America fell to his tyranny, how would we view morality then? Our entire definition has changed because of the circumstance. Perhaps we see murder as acceptable and surviving as a necessity. Would we murder and steal to help keep our families alive, because then we are doing what it takes to live. According to how we perceive morals now that is wrong, but in the situation it is not. I conclude that morality is entirely dependent on where you are at a specific moment in time and what you are experiencing. Depending on the circumstance the definition of right and wrong will never be solid, and will forever bend to fit that specific situation. Thus there is no objectivity.
mrsatan

Pro

I will agree with you on one thing. "Right" and "Wrong" are both very vague terms that can mean many different things. They are constantly used interchangeably, and often inaccurately, with correct/incorrect, acceptable/unacceptable, justified/unjustified, and proper/improper. This is why I generally think in the terms of good and bad rather than right and wrong. I'm not sure what you consider right and wrong to mean in relation to morality, but I see them as meaning helpful and hurtful, respectively.


Now, I should defend my own statement, as you have misrepresented its meaning.

"There is still subjectivity in how we integrate morality into our society."

By this, I am NOT referring to whether or not we accept morals, nor does that even apply to this debate. What we believe moral actions to be does not change what they actually are. In essence, that would be saying that people are always correct, and what we consider truth becomes truth. This, however, is not the case. It was once a widely held belief that the world is flat. Many people considered this true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, as we know, this was never actually true.

What I was really referring to with this statement, is how we justify an act of immorality. It's a question that often comes up when discussing morality:

Do the ends justify the means?

In other words: Is a moral outcome reason enough for an immoral action? This is where there is subjectivity, as there is no concrete answer of yes or no. It depends on the outcome, on the action, and on all parties involved.

Con states, "Perhaps we see murder as acceptable and surviving as a necessity. Would we murder and steal to help keep our families alive, because then we are doing what it takes to live. According to how we perceive morals now that is wrong, but in the situation it is not." This is an example of that question, albeit a vague example. There is a distinct difference between acceptable and moral. In this case, it is still immoral to murder and steal. But people have a moral obligation to provide for their families, especially in the case of children they have brought into the world. So the question is not whether it becomes moral to kill and steal, but rather, "Is the immorality of killing/stealing outweighed by the morality of keeping your own family alive, and therefore acceptable reason to behave immorally?". There is no solid answer to this. Some would say its reasonable justification, others would disagree. If it were only stealing, and no one was being killed, some who disagreed before might then agree. But this subjectivity is based on the acceptability of immoral action, not on morality itself.



Morality in the Animal Kingdom

Con also says that the (non-human) animal kingdom, and even some parts of the human world, see murder, rape, incest, and other acts of immoral nature acceptable. He then asks, since this is acceptable for them, what makes it wrong for us? Again, it's confusing acceptable with right and good. They find these things acceptable, but this is for one of two reasons. The first reason would be that they don't consider morals before taking action, in which case it is not a valid comparison as they don't care if it's wrong. The second reason is that they simply have poor moral compasses, which is to say they just don't know when they're doing something wrong. But then we must ask, "What is a moral compass, and what's it based on?".


Moral Compass

A moral compass is ones sense of right and wrong, and it's based on the guidelines by which we judge morality. Con believes there are no guidelines do not exist, but I disagree. Some say these guidelines come from God, others say they come from evolution. I myself believe it comes from evolution, but in truth, it doesn't matter where they come from, only that they are there. These guidelines are the conscience, the emotion of empathy, and the ability to consider morality. Basically, the conscience is the rulebook, while empathy and thought make up the learning process.

When we consider an actions morality before taking said action, we think about whether or not it will hurt someone. We can then add it to our rulebook of conscience, and know that it is immoral. We may still perform the act if we feel it's necessary, but we still know it's immoral.

On the other hand, we don't always consider morality before we do something. In this case, should that action hurt someone, we feel it through empathy. We feel bad, because we have done something bad, and again this can be added to our rulebook of conscience. We may try to reconcile, to remove the hurt we have caused, but that still doesn't change that causing the hurt in the first place was immoral.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

I am going to try and sum all of your arguments into one rebuttal. I want to make sure we are on the right page with what we are arguing, because in a way we agree with a lot of this which will make this extremely hard for people to vote. Seeing as how this whole debate is about the perception of right and wrong or good and bad, I would like to make clear what I intended by my points and to add on to how I perceive morality as a whole. I labeled this as religion but I think it would have been better served under philosophy.

In your previous argument you stated

"In other words: Is a moral outcome reason enough for an immoral action? This is where there is subjectivity, as there is no concrete answer of yes or no. It depends on the outcome, on the action, and on all parties involved."

"A moral compass is ones sense of right and wrong, and it's based on the guidelines by which we judge morality."

By making these points you are saying saying there is a moral compass or a sense right and wrong and it exists objectively because of evolution and other factors and not because of a God. By stating that there is not right or wrong answer in a way your are admitting that there is no objective morality. You are acknowledging at this point that it is completely dependant on the situation.

I understand your view of right and wrong vs moral and immoral and it is unique and individual way to look at this topic, I do believe you are admitting that morality and or good and bad can be entirely subjective, you are just separating the two definitions.

You used the point that

"By this, I am NOT referring to whether or not we accept morals, nor does that even apply to this debate. What we believe moral actions to be does not change what they actually are. In essence, that would be saying that people are always correct, and what we consider truth becomes truth. This, however, is not the case. It was once a widely held belief that the world is flat. Many people considered this true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, as we know, this was never actually true."


I did not or do not ever intend to say humans are always right. The issue with this example is that it was a belief that was dependant on action such as murder or rape. You are saying that because someone sees murder as right, it would be right. I am not saying that either. My point is that if enough people see murder as right, that is all a person in that society would know, completely shifting their definition of what morality is. There would be no objective morality because objective morality in that case is directly relative to the persons knowledge.

I purpose that morality is completely dependant on culture, race, species, points in time, and experiences. That what we percieve as objective morality is limited to what that persons knowledge, what they have been taught, and how they are living. Mixed in with a the previous factors I mentioned i do not see how their can be a moral compass, or that there is a universal sense of right and wrong

mrsatan

Pro

At this point, I find my previous arguments are all either invalid, or have been successfully refuted. As I told Con earlier, I have been back and forth on this very matter. I've spent the better part of the past two weeks contemplating whether morality is objective or subjective.

I was going to explain my reasoning behind why morality is a development of evolution and then move on to why it's objective. In writing this I have again been back an forth on the matter. While I still feel morality is objective, it's not for the reason I originally thought.

I apologize, as I have essentially wasted two full rounds of this debate, but I believe the following argument is solid proof of objective morality.




Opposed to what I previously thought, the origins of morality are rather important to this debate. The very core of morality is within these origins, so I will begin anew there.


The Evolution Basis for Morality:


It is my belief that society is both a motivator and cause of morality, but the cultures and rules created by that society have no impact on what it is. Morality cannot exist without society, but in order to grow, any society needs morality. For a young society morality is relatively simple, but as any society grows, morality becomes increasingly complex and harder to determine. This is because the reasoning for a society is the desire to live, both well and safely. That desire is at the core of morality itself, for in a society, that which is beneficial to society would be right and good, and that which is detrimental to society would be wrong and bad.

A moral action would then be one that is beneficial to society, while an immoral action would be one that is detrimental to it. Actions that have no effect on society would have no moral value.

In a small society, human or non-human, it's fairly easy to determine if an act is moral or not as there are less members to consider benefit and detriment to. For instance, in a small human society, cultivating a garden or hunting to help feed the society, would be a moral act. In contrast, consuming food provided by society in order to live, without being a contributing member of that society in some way, would be nothing more than a drain on society, and would therefore be detrimental and immoral.

Sadly, as society grows so do the number of variables to consider. When there are millions of members to consider, determining what is beneficial or detrimental to society becomes more difficult. But, in the end, whether or not we can determine that doesn't matter. If an action is taken, and it does actually benefit society, then that action, at that time, was a moral action. If that same action is tried at later date, but this time hurts society, then that action, at that time, was an immoral action.

Any action, at any given time, is going to result is one of three things. It will either help, hurt, or have no effect on, society. Whether or not we know which result that action will end in is irrelevant. If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity.
Debate Round No. 3
Mikal

Con

First I would like to thank pro for being humble. He has voided in argument he made prior to this due to me refuting it, and wishes to establish his case. I will no longer offer rebuttals to any prior points because he has ruled them void. I will now focus on his new points.

I will break his argument down into main points

(1) Society is a motivator and a cause of morality, but cultures and rules have no impact on what morality is itself

(2) Morality would not exist without a society

(3) The size of a society makes morality more complex

(4) Morality is directly relevant to how it will effect a society.



I will now start with (1)

My adversary claims that society is a catalyst for morality but has no impact on what it is. I in turn disagree. With us debating what objective morality is, we have already mentioned that it is an overall sense of right and wrong and good and evil. Meaning that this must be across the board for every society that exists. For example let me create two different societies. Society 1 lives in Africa. They have never been touched by modern civilization. They worship a God that they believe to be true, and have their own holy book. In this holy book it teaches, that survival is a key part in life. That you must do whatever is deemed necessary to live. It also condones competition for their wives. In fact they believe it okay to murder and fight for who will own the rights to a woman. I will name America as society 2 since it proves my point and I will not have to build an example. We have evolved past these primitive beliefs and believe that women are equal to men. We also know that murder for the sake of murder is wrong. Since each society has a different world view and conflicting views, what makes one right and the other wrong. There is nothing to judge this by. If you for example were born into the first society. At this moment you would think a wife is a tool, and you have the right to murder for her. This would be good or moral, and not be labeled as evil or bad because that is objective within than community. In society two it is the reverse. Therefore there is no gauge of right and wrong or good and evil, and society does determine what morality is and what definitions it has. Now to further demonstrate this point, when society 2 meets missionaries or a different tribe, they start to take in account the beliefs of a different society. This in turn changes their own morality. It warps their definition of what is moral and what is not. At that point they evolve their understanding of what right and wrong is, and have a completely different understand. This is the definition of morality and what is good and evil is directly relevant to culture and time. There can be no objective morality, because you would have to gauge this. We as America believe they are wrong, because of our worldview and experiences. That does not make them wrong because their definition of objective morality is directly relevant as to what they know.

(2)

I can not refute this point nor do I disagree with it. It however is not applicable to this debate. There is no way to know if morality would exist without a society. I will say that I agree with him since in essence he is saying, that it takes a society to determine what morality is. With him saying this, he has given a free point to my camp

(3)

Again in entirely agree with him. However this is also another point to my camp. With him acknowledging that the size of a society determines how complex the morality is, is admitting that morality is subjective based off of circumstances.

(4)

I will offer a direct quote on this point. He states


"Any action, at any given time, is going to result is one of three things. It will either help, hurt, or have no effect on, society. Whether or not we know which result that action will end in is irrelevant. If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity."


This is also a true statement but let us look at the implications of it. He says any action will either hurt, help, or have no effect on society. So let me go back to my prior example of society 1 and 2. Murder in society one earns you a wife and possibly fame. While this is helping you, it is also not hindering the society but that is not the question at hand. The question is how do we know that action is morally correct. We can only use our experience that we have to draw our on conclusion. Our experience and conclusion would be different than someone who is in society 1, due to different cultures, technology, and experiences.

Due to the fact that my adversary has offered to way to gauge morality objectively across the board that my initial statement is correct. Morality is subjective based off on ones culture, experience, location and knowledge. As I have demonstrated through out this debate, morality is gauged based on the knowledge a society possess at a specific point in time. Since there is no way to judge why one is right, and one is wrong morality is subjective.

I eagerly await my opponents response



mrsatan

Pro

As Con has done an excellent job of breaking my argument down to its main points, I will offer rebuttals on those same points.


(1) Society is a motivator and a cause of morality, but cultures and rules have no impact on what morality is itself

I would like to first point out that Con repeatedly says "good and evil". But "evil" is not the same as "bad".


That said, the argument I made in my last round does provide an overall, across the board, sense of right and wrong or good and bad. That sense is whether something is beneficial, or detrimental, to society. Objectivity doesn't consider individual existence, but it does consider circumstance. In the two societies identified by Con, the circumstances are different, and therefore morality can remain objective, while applying in different ways.


Con states, "murder for the sake of murder is wrong", and this I can agree with. But let's not confuse murder with killing. Killing is only murder when it is unlawful, or unacceptable. However, I believe killing for the sake of killing is also wrong, as it diminishes society without alternative benefit.


Society 1:

As you say, Society 1 is a primitive society. It is in the early stages of its development. But the killing described is not done for the sake of killing. It is a way of establishing dominance and boundaries. The ones who come out on top will be held in higher regard than other members of the society. This helps to establish a hierarchy, which can then evolve to a governing entity. And so, while primitive, this killing is moral because it benefits the society as a whole.

You also say that the it is acceptable for these for a man t kill his wife in this society. But that doesn't mean this killing is a moral act. If that woman were contributing nothing to the society, and the society is suffering for keeping her alive, then it would be moral. This, however, is not the case. In regards to reproduction, women bring an inherent benefit to society that is greater than mans. Any society will die out without reproducing, this cannot be argued against. One man can impregnate ten women in a short time, whereas the same is not true for ten men and one woman. Therefore, unless that woman is detrimental to society in some way, killing her is an immoral act.


Society 2:

As you say, in Society 2, America, we have evolved beyond a primitive society. This just means American society is at a later stage of development than the above society. Women are no longer considered inferior in America, nor should they be, but there was a time when they were. This happens consistently in developing societies, because a primitive society has an easier time developing when one gender has more say. Once that society develops to the point where that inequality is no longer beneficial, as American society did, all that is left is discord, which on its own is harmful to society.



So, in these examples, while the moral value of certain actions can change due to circumstance, morality itself remains objective in whether these actions are right or wrong, and good or bad, for society.




(2) Morality would not exist without a society

I'm not saying that society decides what morality is. I'm saying morality is inapplicable without society.

However, with further thought it seems I am wrong in this, and morality can exist without society. This still does not change what morality is. In the case of a lone man, living in the wilderness, a moral act would then be anything that benefits that him, and an immoral act would be anything detrimental to him. For instance, killing a deer when in need of food would be a moral act, as he could then feed himself.

However, killing a deer and leaving it to rot in the woods would be an immoral act, as it would be detrimental to his well being. Not only would that be one less deer to hunt when the he does need food in the future, but it would be cause for other deer to stay away, and then be a considerably large lack of deer to hunt.


I'll also peremptorily dismiss any argument that this is not objective because a lone man is of independent existence. Morality has not changed in consideration of this individual. It is simply being applied to him and his circumstance.



(3) The size of a society makes morality more complex

This is not favorable to Con, nor does it change what morality is. All it means is that it becomes more difficult to determine whether an action is moral or immoral, or neither. As I said earlier, objective morality can consider circumstance while remaining objective.



(4) Morality is directly relevant to how it will effect a society.

I believe my above arguments refute Cons claims here, but to reiterate, objective morality can consider circumstance while remaining objective.



Beyond that, let's take another look at what I stated in the previous round.

"Any action, at any given time, is going to result is one of three things. It will either help, hurt, or have no effect on, society. Whether or not we know which result that action will end in is irrelevant. If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity."

Con admits that the above is true. He then goes on to say that a lack of knowledge make it subjective.

So, basically, what Con is saying is: If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity... But, regardless, it's still subjectivity.

I would ask that Con either clarify, or dismiss, his argument on this point, as it does not currently make sense.



With that, I wish my opponent luck in the final round.
Debate Round No. 4
Mikal

Con

I would first like to clarify the statement my adversary requested. With my statements I have intended to show that how much a society knows determines morality, thus every society has its own personal sense of objective morality. I am trying to figure out how in essence we can debate this now because we are both essentially saying the same thing since pro changed his argument, we are just interpreting the word objective differently.

Since this is the last round I will try and tackle pros main point as to why he believes morality is objective. If i go point by point, it will result in the same discussion due to us interpreting the word differently. If i however can break down the main point that he is stating, all his other arguments will be proven invalid. So I will focus on this one point due to this being the closing round. It will allow me to refute his claims by breaking down the foundation of them, and also allow me to offering a closing summary of my case.

Pros main argument behind his reasoning is this

(1)

"Any action, at any given time, is going to result is one of three things. It will either help, hurt, or have no effect on, society. Whether or not we know which result that action will end in is irrelevant. If that action is taken, the outcome will be the same, regardless of our knowledge. Any subjectivity then is not really subjectivity. It's simply guesswork due a lack of knowledge, and is being mistaken as subjectivity."

Let us look one more time at what objective morality is. It is an universal or overall sense of right and wrong. Pro claims this himself. "That said, the argument I made in my last round does provide an overall, across the board, sense of right and wrong or good and bad". Pros main point essentially is saying, when something benefits a society it would be the objective moral action and anything that harms it would be immoral. Now matter how I try to look at this argument it is still flawed, and should be classified as subjective and not objective. The issue with this is what if someone commits an immoral act such as murder that does not offer progression of the society, but is still regarded as permissible by the society. Under Pros argument any immoral act could be considered moral, if it led to progression or benefited that society. So take society 1 which I had previously mentioned. If someone steals, kills , or rapes when it is only considered acceptable by the society(not progressing, advancing or establishing dominance),with this offering no benefit to the society that act would still be considered subjective morality. Pro may refute this with it has no specific effect on the society, but it will effect that persons family, or people who know him. When however that society sees this as acceptable, and it has effected someone negatively in turn, but offered no progression how then would be label this without subjective morality.If it was objective according to pros definition that specific act or immorality, would have to offer some type of benefit. We are then saying that specific act is directly relevant to the exact situation and time in which it happened. We are now delving so deep in semantics that I am about to drown of philosophy poisoning.

I would address this with more example but I am in turn running out of space so I would like to offer my conclusion. Myself and Pro have both addressed this topic with valid points, and have tangled with semantics and word jousting. This has been a pleasant debate and probably the best one I have been a part of. I think the fundamental right between me and Pro is how we perceive the word objective

I conclude that objective morality is impossible to have. That there is no way to have an overall sense of moral or immoral. That it is impossible to have and overall sense of good and bad. Morality will always be relevant to the specific situation in which it is put into question. Depending on the time period, location, experiences, culture, and knowledge that a society has morality must be directly correlating to those points. Pro has shown a valid argument as to why he thinks morality is objective, he believes that moral objectivity is based around progression or non progression. I in turn have shown how this can be construed as subjective depending on the circumstance at hand. I can not nor still see how there can be an overall sense of right and wrong.

I turn the floor back to Pro and I have enjoyed every minute of this debate
mrsatan

Pro

Con may very well be right, that we are interpreting objective differently. As such, I will keep my final round as short as I can, and give a simple explanation of the conclusion I have come to.


I see this statement as an apt description of that conclusion:
  • Morality is an objective concept, but it can only be applied to life through subjectivity.
In other words, morality has a constant, unchanging goal or meaning, and is therefore objective. However, the moral value of any specific action can change based on the circumstances of those to whom it's being applied, and is therefore also subjective.



I will leave it that, as I honestly see no where else to go with it. Regardless of who wins this debate, it has been a very enjoyable experience. In my eyes, debate is a chance for both the audience and the debators to gain enlightenment, and I have found Cons insights to be very enlightening, and would like thank him for that. As it stands, I've come to the conclusion that we are both partially correct.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
@inductivelogic

I gotta say your reasoning for you're vote put a smile on my face. It's good to know you enjoyed the debate. And I believe I can speak for both Mikal and myself in saying all that digging was exhaustive.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I think when you changed your position we agreed. We just had a different perspective on what was subjective. Overall your logic gave me something to consider that i have never even thought of.

especially that objectivity as a constant in regards of how it impacts a society. That took me forever to even logically refute. Even with that, it is semantics and we both are right in essence.

This was splendid.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Thanks again for the debate Mikal. I'm not really sure whether we ended up agreeing or not, but in either case, it was both a fun and engaging debate.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Lol, now that is some downright serious thinking :) I'm glad I didn't reach that point, but it is definitely a helluva debate
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
This debate was wonderful by the way. I literally had to pop Advil after my last response.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Glad you liked it :) I figured I'd throw it in at some point, even if it ended up being an irrelevant side note, as it seemed to be something you'd be interested in reading. I'm also glad I took this debate, as I doubt that reasoning would have crossed my mind otherwise. At the very least, not in as clear a sense as trying to write it down did.

And you're definitely right that this should be under philosophy. But, with most reasoning for objective morality being god related, it's understandable why you chose religion.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I will try and respond shortly :), just wanted to say the way you worded the last argument was precise and will be fun to combat. I was waiting for you to bring the origin of morality into this debate, and i will try my best to combat it :). Im looking forward to it.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Yea, I've actually been back and forth on the matter myself for the past week or so sparked by a few debates on here. At this point in time I believe it's objective, but who knows. Maybe you can change my mind yet again. :)
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
That is what i am use to seeing lol. I just do no see how there is a overall right and wrong, which i will support during the debate :). I will enjoy seeing how you view this :)
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Okay, excellent. I was worried this was going to turn into a debate about god, and I don't want that. I don't see morality as having anything to do with the divine.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
MikalmrsatanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't know much about this, but I believe you guys were arguing the same thing in the end. Both of you said that society, and circumstance, can change what's acceptable, but pro said it was objective, and con argued it was subjective. I think it was a tie, so this vote might be useless.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
MikalmrsatanTied
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: I just spent around an hour reading this, and my mind is blown. I have no other way to word that. There is virtually no way to judge this. I am giving con arguments only for the reason, that he initially refuted Pros points and made him take a entirely new stance. Since this debate had no real resolution, that is the only thing I can vote on. Dear God though guys, I still am dumbstruck lol. This debate was so deep, I think you dug straight through the earth.