The Instigator
blackkid
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Reasonably Morals are Subjective

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 3 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 691 times Debate No: 61431
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

blackkid

Pro

R1: Acceptance
R2: Argumentation
R3: Rebuttal/Argumentation
R4: Closing

The goal of anyone who accepts is to attempt to generate strong reason to believe that morals are objective.
1Credo

Con

I accept.

Thanks for creating the debate, Pro. I will be defending objective morality. I assume that the burden of proof will be shared. Looking forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
blackkid

Pro

I will argue that morals are subjective for X core reasons:

1. Instability: Morals have 'arguments' that are generally unstable producing the same ends through different means to the same conclusion which in turn weakens their universal value. I'll offer an array example:

A) "Murder is wrong because God said it is."
B) "Murder is wrong because no one deserves to die."
C) "Murder is wrong because harming others is wrong."
D) "Murder is wrong because life is sacred and must be preserved."
E) "Murder is wrong because it is inherently harmful to human society and survival."

These are all very different reasons coming to the same conclusion yet not all of them are required in order to achieve the same conclusion. Most of them however do not have any implications of reasoning but instead are deductive in nature expressing that it is wrong on the grounds of being related to a nonsequitur element.

2. Inconsistency: Morals are often amended as per the situation granting a clear difference between one act and another despite there being no real differentiation. I offer another array:

A) "A man steals $1 from a child who only has $5 and is trying to save for a toy. The same man steals $1 from a billionaire who isn't even aware it's missing.", in this example materiality is the deciding factor and often one crime is considered worse than the other despite the fact that they are actually the same act.

B) "A man kills another man over an insult. The same man previously killed another man who he caught cheating with his wife.", in this example we note the same crime, killing a person, but in the latter example at times you will be able to get a different judgment (crime of passion) presuming that the motive to kill was different and it was done out of rage however the prior example is the same crime with the same argument of passion but it is not seen as a sound defense.

C) "A man tells a lie that saves a life by falsely convicting another person who would eventually have harmed someone else. A man tells a lie that ruins a life by also falsely convicting another person who would not eventually have harmed someone else.", in this example we note that argument of potential in both scenarios and how they harp on the unknown. The crime is the same, lying, particular perjury, but the outcomes are rated differently therefore if found out that man A was dangerous then the liar is praised but if man B turns out harmless is there justice all the same? Will the liar be considered for perjury for one and not the other?

3. Lack of Integrity: Morals are quick to dissolve when contested particularly because they do not require adequate backing in order to achieve their state as a standard for behavior. My final array for this round:

A) "It is wrong to clone things because it is unnatural", this appeal to nature is completely fallacious and yet was sufficient in the past (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) to be allowed as a legitimate contestant. Furthermore it was joined by other equivalent errors in thinking appealing to nature or divinity.

B) "Being wealthy means being greedy and greed is immoral therefore wealth is immoral.", this is a widely believed and misquoted (https://www.biblegateway.com...) statement referring to "Money is the Root of All Evil" which is widely taught. The nature of this type of argumentation is circular because it doesn't explain why wealth equates greed but instead simply insists this is the case deductively. These arguments are common for other issues such as beauty as well where being naturally aligned with a social viewpoint of beauty makes one not a "real woman" with all sorts of emotional assertions being made about the matter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., https://www.facebook.com..., etc.) none of which are valid.

Your turn.
1Credo

Con

Thanks Pro.

1. Rebuttal

Pro seems to misinterpret the meaning of objective morality. Here is a definition that may be of help to Pro or readers: "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true." [1]

Each of the three objections given by Pro in attempt to take issue with objective morality were themselves subjective examples. Let us take a look at each objection given by Pro:

"1. Instability: Morals have 'arguments' that are generally unstable producing the same ends through different means to the same conclusion which in turn weakens their universal value."

Pro gives five examples to illustrate this point. The problem is, each is an example of subjective morality! Pro lists five different explanations for murder being wrong. One example is "murder is wrong because no one deserves to die." But surely Pro must understand that this very statement is a subjective one. If objective morality were true, it would mean that murder is wrong independent of each of the subjective examples given by Pro, as these examples are all subjective opinions as opposed to objective fact. So it seems that Pro's first objection takes issue with subjective morality, and not with objective morality.

"2. Inconsistency: Morals are often amended as per the situation granting a clear difference between one act and another despite there being no real differentiation."

Again, Pro has misconstrued the true meaning of objective morality. By its very definition, objective morality cannot be "often amended as per the situation." This is just another example of subjective morality! Let's take a look at one of the examples Pro gives:

"A man steals $1 from a child who only has $5 and is trying to save for a toy. The same man steals $1 from a billionaire who isn't even aware it's missing. in this example materiality is the deciding factor and often one crime is considered worse than the other despite the fact that they are actually the same act."

On objective morality, theft is theft. It is our subjective opinions that lead us to believe that stealing from a child is worse than stealing from a billionaire.

"3. Lack of Integrity: Morals are quick to dissolve when contested particularly because they do not require adequate backing in order to achieve their state as a standard for behavior."

Here Pro gives an example saying "It is wrong to clone things because it is unnatural." Again, this is a subjective opinion. On objective morality, no opinion (i.e. "because it is unnatural") is needed, because the act itself would either be inherently wrong or right.

2. Question for Pro

In order to believe that objective morality does not exist, Pro must affirm that actions such as rape, torture, and murder are not wrong, but only socially unacceptable behaviors. What is Pro's view on this?

3. Argument in Favor of Objective Morality

Our moral senses are comparable to our physical senses (sight, touch, etc.) We have no more reason to distrust our moral senses than we do to distrust our physical senses. For example, if I asked, "What evidence do you have for thinking that the external world really exists? How do you know you aren't just a brain in a vat, with a virtual reality programmed into your brain by some sort of aliens that gives the illusion of reality?" The only way that one could try to explain their belief in the external world would be to say "I can see..., I can touch..., etc." But this, of course, would be arguing in a circle. One cannot use their physical senses in order to prove that their physical senses are reliable.

However, it seems to me that we are all perfectly reasonable in trusting our physical senses, as it is a sort of properly basic belief (a belief which needs no grounding in other beliefs.) In the very same way, trusting our moral senses as reliable is a properly basic belief. Any argument against the reliability of our moral senses can be countered with a parallel argument against our physical senses. So in order to truly reject the reliability of your moral senses, one would have to reject the reliability of their physical senses as well. This goes to show that each of us can truly sense between right and wrong, and goes against the idea that morals are mere subjective opinions.

4. Summary

Pro gave three objections to objective morality, though we saw that each of these objections were instead describing subjective morality. This is either a misunderstanding of what objective morality entails on Pro's part, or perhaps Pro affirms objective morality and has accidentally chosen "Pro" instead of "Con." I provided reasoning for thinking that our moral senses are as reliable as our physical senses, so that they are more than subjective opinions. Pro has failed to produce any warrant for his/her claim that "Morals are Subjective" and thus has not carried his/her share of the burden of proof.

Back to Pro.

Sources:
http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 2
blackkid

Pro

"Question for Pro: In order to believe that objective morality does not exist, Pro must affirm that actions such as rape, torture, and murder are not wrong, but only socially unacceptable behaviors. What is Pro's view on this?", while this is a false dilemma and appeal to emotion through the mentioning of grievous states and crimes I will answer anyway. All actions that are considered "wrong" however suffer the inconsistency and lack of integrity mentioned before; instead of being wrong by principle they are wrong by circumstance. For instance it is "acceptable" to torture an enemy but abhorrent to torture an innocent person, it is "acceptable" and often done where persons who are sexually assaulted regardless of degree can be even partially blamed for their "flirtatious nature" or other such "arguments" about "deserving it", and murder has already been covered above showing that it's not stable or steady in it's reasoning.

Rebuttal in two parts:

"Argument in Favor of Objective Morality

Our moral senses are comparable to our physical senses (sight, touch, etc.) We have no more reason to distrust our moral senses than we do to distrust our physical senses. For example, if I asked, "What evidence do you have for thinking that the external world really exists? How do you know you aren't just a brain in a vat, with a virtual reality programmed into your brain by some sort of aliens that gives the illusion of reality?" The only way that one could try to explain their belief in the external world would be to say "I can see..., I can touch..., etc." But this, of course, would be arguing in a circle. One cannot use their physical senses in order to prove that their physical senses are reliable."

A) If we liken our moral senses as our physical senses is it not true that they are, just as our physical senses would be, just as easily fooled by illusions and tricks? Instead of crafty boxes and optical illusions and simple brain tricks however I would pose that our emotions and mental state are where the hallucinations occur for our moral standards. The class "brain vat" question does not defeat this problem particularly because it asks about the stability of reality but does not address the problem of the delusion. Even if one were to note that one cannot define something by itself in this case it does not matter particularly because there is no grounds to believe that moral senses, if such things exist, are stable like eyesight to begin with and if they are especially susceptible to the aforementioned delusions.

"However, it seems to me that we are all perfectly reasonable in trusting our physical senses, as it is a sort of properly basic belief (a belief which needs no grounding in other beliefs.) In the very same way, trusting our moral senses as reliable is a properly basic belief. Any argument against the reliability of our moral senses can be countered with a parallel argument against our physical senses. So in order to truly reject the reliability of your moral senses, one would have to reject the reliability of their physical senses as well. This goes to show that each of us can truly sense between right and wrong, and goes against the idea that morals are mere subjective opinions."

B) Yet we already know that our physical senses have extreme limitations. If this is the case, if we are to be totally honest with ourselves as people relating to our physical senses, then we must acknowledge our shortcomings as beasts and realize that our moral nature may have the same sufferings. Are we as keen as a dog in any sense? Are we as strong as our gorilla cousins? Are we as spry as other apes? Are we as agile as the cat? I say, no. We have what we have, we are what we are, and if one must draw parallels between what we are excellent at physically one realizes it's not as much as one believes. None of this is evidence, let alone proof, of moral senses let alone that they are acute and reliable. It is through technology alone, as it would be through reason alone for philosophical matters, that we are granted our great position on the planet; it is not our sense that have gotten us this far but those things we make to aid them. So what aids our moral senses if they are as weak? No such technology exists and reason is pliable and emotion is strong; there is no valid reason to have faith in an unaided and weak sense that may not even bet there.

Rebuttal:

As there is little to do other than note that my opponent has shown all of the subjective morality to be subjective and failed to show that there is such a thing as moral sense simply assuming it is there, assuming it's strength, and proposing it's natural soundness despite their own examples being easily curtailed by how easy the five senses are tricked and how much easier it is to trick them when emotions like fear are apart of the delusion it is confusing to me how the fact that the opposite is true for objective morality does not prove, esp. with the reasoning my opponents poses locking in the very nature of the subjectivity, that objectivity is not there and it is completely subjective. For ask yourself one question: If eyesight were morality what do we do for the blind? For those legal and totally blind? What about the acute? Do we assume normalcy and that senses do not shift, change, or are damaged and altered? When a man loses an eye he loses vision. What controls the moral sense? What can a man lose, or improve, to acquire a heightened sense?

It is questionable, the nature of this moral sense, and even moreso the parallel between physicality and that which is seemingly metaphysical altogether.

Done.
1Credo

Con

Thanks Pro.

1. Rebuttal

In the last round, I asked Pro if he/she affirmed that actions such as rape, torture, and murder were not inherently wrong, but rather a mere example of socially unacceptable behavior. On Pro's view that morality is subjective, it seems to me that there is nothing really "wrong" with actions like rape, torture, and murder. Pro responded by suggesting that this question was only an "appeal to emotion." It is a serious question that has deep implications for the topic that is being discussed in this debate. Are these actions inherently wrong, or are they not?

"All actions that are considered "wrong" however suffer the inconsistency and lack of integrity mentioned before; instead of being wrong by principle they are wrong by circumstance. For instance it is "acceptable" to torture an enemy but abhorrent to torture an innocent person."

Just as in the last round, Pro demonstrates his/her lack of understanding of the concept of objective morality. "Wrong by circumstance" is an issue with subjective morality, not with objective morality. Pro gives the example of torturing an enemy as opposed to an innocent person. What Pro does not seem to understand is that on objective morality, torture is objectively wrong (independent of opinion or circumstance) so that any type of torture (enemy or friend) would be evil. On subjective morality, however, anyone is able to torture (or not torture) anyone they like, so long as they subjectively believe it to be good. I could torture an innocent person all I like on subjective morality, and it would be just as "good" for me as giving money to the poor might be "good" for you. Pro's example displays a significant problem with subjective morality, not with objective morality.

"It is "acceptable" and often done where persons who are sexually assaulted regardless of degree can be even partially blamed for their "flirtatious nature."

This is yet another example of subjective morality. If subjective morality holds true, there is nothing "wrong" with sexual assault at all, so there is not even a need to wrongfully blame a victim for flirtatious nature. On objective morality, however, sexual assault is wrong whether one is of the strange view that the victim brought it upon themselves or not. It is objectively wrong.

To the argument that I presented in favor of objective morality, Pro gave two rebuttals:

"A) If we liken our moral senses as our physical senses is it not true that they are, just as our physical senses would be, just as easily fooled by illusions and tricks? Instead of crafty boxes and optical illusions and simple brain tricks however I would pose that our emotions and mental state are where the hallucinations occur for our moral standards. The class "brain vat" question does not defeat this problem particularly because it asks about the stability of reality but does not address the problem of the delusion. Even if one were to note that one cannot define something by itself in this case it does not matter particularly because there is no grounds to believe that moral senses, if such things exist, are stable like eyesight to begin with and if they are especially susceptible to the aforementioned delusions."

I would agree that these moral senses, like our physical senses, could be "fooled by illusions and tricks." However, this does nothing to show that the moral senses do not exist. If you are being tricked into thinking that you are tasting Coca-Cola when in fact you are drinking Pepsi in your cup, does this mean that there is no such thing as a sense of taste? In the same way, just because one's moral sense is under the same sort of trick or illusion, it does not follow that moral senses do not exist at all.

"B) Yet we already know that our physical senses have extreme limitations. If this is the case, if we are to be totally honest with ourselves as people relating to our physical senses, then we must acknowledge our shortcomings as beasts and realize that our moral nature may have the same sufferings. Are we as keen as a dog in any sense? Are we as strong as our gorilla cousins? Are we as spry as other apes? Are we as agile as the cat? I say, no. We have what we have, we are what we are, and if one must draw parallels between what we are excellent at physically one realizes it's not as much as one believes. None of this is evidence, let alone proof, of moral senses let alone that they are acute and reliable. It is through technology alone, as it would be through reason alone for philosophical matters, that we are granted our great position on the planet; it is not our sense that have gotten us this far but those things we make to aid them. So what aids our moral senses if they are as weak? No such technology exists and reason is pliable and emotion is strong; there is no valid reason to have faith in an unaided and weak sense that may not even bet there."

I agree with what Pro says regarding the limitations of our physical senses, as compared to animals in the examples given. I'm not sure that anything stated in this portion of the rebuttal has anything to do with objective vs. subjective morality (I'm really puzzled with what Pro is trying to demonstrate with the idea of technology.) All I will add is the proposition that it is entirely possible humans are the only beings with a moral sense. Maybe other animals have this sense, and maybe they do not. But we are discussing whether or not objective morality exists, not what it's limitations are. Something cannot have these sorts of limitations unless it exists, in which case our question for this debate would already be answered.

"Failed to show that there is such a thing as moral sense simply assuming it is there."

I do not think that I have made any sorts of unwarranted assumptions with regard to the idea of a moral sense. I gave good reason on why there is no more reason to distrust our moral senses than there is to distrust our physical senses. Pro's only response to this was that if it were true, then our moral senses could be "tricked" like our physical senses. I agreed to this, as it does not present a defeater for our moral senses. As such, Pro has given us no reason to think that objective morality does not exist.

2. Summary

In the last two rounds, Pro has shown that he/she does not understand the meaning of "objective" in objective morality. Every example Pro has given throughout this debate in attempt to discredit objective morality has itself been an example (and a discredit, I might add) to subjective morality instead. It seems to me that Pro takes great issue with what follows from subjective morality. For example, Pro does not like the idea of an act being wrong for several different opinionated reasons, saying that "producing the same ends through different means to the same conclusion... weakens their universal value." In another example, Pro takes issue with the idea of situational morality. This is shown in Pro's example from the second round: "A man steals $1 from a child who only has $5 and is trying to save for a toy. The same man steals $1 from a billionaire who isn't even aware it's missing.", in this example materiality is the deciding factor and often one crime is considered worse than the other despite the fact that they are actually the same act." Finally, Pro has a problem with the idea that one should appeal to fallacious argument in attempt to support their personal moral views.

I am astounded that Pro affirms subjective morality. In each example Pro has given, he/she takes issue with an aspect of subjective morality when trying to argue against objective morality. I agree with the majority of the arguments that Pro has made in this debate. The problem (for Pro) is, these arguments have been against subjective morality! I invite Pro to consider the definition of objective morality (given in previous round) and reconsider his/her stance on the issue.

Sources:
http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 3
blackkid

Pro

1. Opponent's source: "Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.", as per:

"Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective. Kant ultimately fails, because he is perceptibly committed to Christian morality, which guides his arguments.", (http://rationalwiki.org...)

The source itself disagrees with my opponent. It is questionable if my opponent knows and understands what objective morality is as their own source decries the standards which they infer.

2. "What Pro does not seem to understand is that on objective morality, torture is objectively wrong (independent of opinion or circumstance) so that any type of torture (enemy or friend) would be evil.", the problem here is that there is no evidence of this. There is no one sound referral for this proposition; the statement that it is wrong because it is is not sufficient. The question was "Why?" and never answered. Sadly it will not be explained in this debate.

3. "However, this does nothing to show that the moral senses do not exist. If you are being tricked into thinking that you are tasting Coca-Cola when in fact you are drinking Pepsi in your cup, does this mean that there is no such thing as a sense of taste? In the same way, just because one's moral sense is under the same sort of trick or illusion, it does not follow that moral senses do not exist at all.", the opponent shifts burden of proof; it is, or was, their duty to actually provide that moral senses exist. It is not my claim so even under the presumption that they did it was completely hypothetical presuming they do, however the opponent dodges this by instead insisting that it is a question of their existence versus their mechanics; my rebuttal specifically stated that they could be fooled if they existed and instead of ensuring that they were not so subject to such the red herring was posed instead.

In the second portion it is simply the fact that our senses are weak, if we must liken them to our "moral senses", and furthermore technology is what grants us and our senses the power to continue to thrive. To that end the human as a beast alone is not sufficient, what makes his "moral senses" sufficient? Nothing. Why do I bring this up? Particularly because even if hypothetically such senses existed, which were never shown to other than through a claim that is unsupported, their objectivity would be relative to their actual strength no different than the objectivity of what we see and feel would be relative to the strength of the physical senses in humans. There are many things we cannot see, cannot feel, cannot taste, cannot smell, and cannot hear so if our moral senses were keen enough to form an objective standard how strong are they? Furthermore how do we measure their strength? How do we measure them period? These are all key to providing that objective morality would have a basis on "moral sense". After all the capacity to see means very little if you cannot actually see very well, and so the same here.

As for the third but there's no backing for "moral senses" that can be likened to physical senses. With no basis for what you consider to be the medium for the standard then there's no value to assuming the standard itself exists esp. if it's intangible.

I will rest my case by stating two things:

A) There has been no evidence provided for any form of moral standard or universal standard by my opponent. There are three unfounded claims (moral senses, accuracy of moral sense, objectivity of moral senses) relating to the issue.

B) Opponent's source disagrees with him in the sentence right after that which he quotes stating functionally that no such thing as objective morality exists due to a lack of strong argumentation.

Close.
1Credo

Con

Thanks Pro.

1. Rebuttal

Pro quoted my source twice; in one instance giving the definition of objective morality (which I provided in a previous round) "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true" and in another instance saying "Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." I agree with both of these quotes (as I rightly ought to, given that it was I who provided the source.) But then Pro goes on to say:

"The source itself disagrees with my opponent. It is questionable if my opponent knows and understands what objective morality is as their own source decries the standards which they infer."

In no way does either of the quotes from my source given by Pro disagree with my views. I affirm the definition of objective morality (as stated earlier, I provided it) and I also affirm that the idea of murder being wrong can be just as objectively true as a mathematical proof. I fail to see where the issue lies here, as I have no disagreement with the source.

"The problem here is that there is no evidence of this."

The evidence, as I have stated on several occasions throughout this debate, is our sense of morality. In the same way that I can use my sight to tell me that there is a table in front of me, I can use my sense of morality to tell me that torture is wrong. Pro has not refuted this point, instead he/she merely states "it is wrong because it is not sufficient." This kind of objection contains no substance and therefore has no standing.

"The question was "Why?" and never answered."

I don't remember the question "Why?" ever being asked! I would be happy to give my answer. In fact, I think referring to the section directly above this one would provide you with an adequate example of why certain acts are objectively wrong.

"The opponent shifts burden of proof; it is, or was, their duty to actually provide that moral senses exist."

Nice try, Pro. Recall that Pro is the instigator in this debate and has made the assertion that "Morals are Subjective" in the title. Pro is just as responsible to carry the burden of proof for this assertion as I am for defending the idea that morality is objective. It's always fun when opponents attempt to weasel their way out of the burden of proof in the final round.

"Their objectivity would be relative to their actual strength no different than the objectivity of what we see and feel would be relative to the strength of the physical senses in humans."

Once again, the definition of objectivity is distorted by Pro. If something is objective it means that it is factual, independent of human opinion or feelings. Pro says that the strength of our physical senses is limited. This is true, but it does not follow that because our eyesight is limited therefore the things that we see are not real. This idea implied by Pro that limitation equates to nonexistence is false, as shown by our physical senses.

"I will rest my case by stating two things:
A) There has been no evidence provided for any form of moral standard or universal standard by my opponent. There are three unfounded claims (moral senses, accuracy of moral sense, objectivity of moral senses) relating to the issue.
B) Opponent's source disagrees with him in the sentence right after that which he quotes stating functionally that no such thing as objective morality exists due to a lack of strong argumentation."

Pro has not asked me to provide a moral standard in this debate, but I'm happy to provide one now (though now we have no time to discuss this piece of the conversation.) I think God serves as a perfectly good moral standard, but this is perhaps the topic of a separate debate, as we have run out of time in this one (and I don't want to add something that requires a response from Pro when he/she has no more opportunities to provide a response.) As for the three unfounded claims, I have addressed them multiple times during this debate. Each of the three objections that Pro makes are objections against subjective morality, however much Pro may want to insist on the objections counting in his favor. I won't repeat myself, but anyone who has read the debate can see Pro's misunderstanding in his/her arguments as well as my responses. And as for my source "disagreeing" with me, I invite anyone to follow up on the source and see if there are any conflicts between the views I have presented and the two quotes Pro gave at the beginning of the round. As I stated earlier, one of these quotes was the definition that I provided in an earlier round. Surely Pro does not think that the definition I provided of objective morality is in conflict with my view on objective morality. There was also no conflict between the second quote that Pro gave (I agreed with both quotes) as can be seen at the beginning of my argument for this round.

2. Argument in Favor of Objective Morality

In round two of the debate, I presented this argument in favor of objective morality:

"Our moral senses are comparable to our physical senses (sight, touch, etc.) We have no more reason to distrust our moral senses than we do to distrust our physical senses. For example, if I asked, "What evidence do you have for thinking that the external world really exists? How do you know you aren't just a brain in a vat, with a virtual reality programmed into your brain by some sort of aliens that gives the illusion of reality?" The only way that one could try to explain their belief in the external world would be to say "I can see..., I can touch..., etc." But this, of course, would be arguing in a circle. One cannot use their physical senses in order to prove that their physical senses are reliable.
However, it seems to me that we are all perfectly reasonable in trusting our physical senses, as it is a sort of properly basic belief (a belief which needs no grounding in other beliefs.) In the very same way, trusting our moral senses as reliable is a properly basic belief. Any argument against the reliability of our moral senses can be countered with a parallel argument against our physical senses. So in order to truly reject the reliability of your moral senses, one would have to reject the reliability of their physical senses as well. This goes to show that each of us can truly sense between right and wrong, and goes against the idea that morals are mere subjective opinions."

Pro has failed to give any sound objections to this argument, and thus the argument stands.

3. Conclusion

I would like to thank Pro for creating and participating in this debate.

I will reiterate the fact that most of the arguments Pro has presented have been arguments against subjective morality. I again invite Pro to take a second look at the meaning of objective morality and reconsider his/her views on the subject, as they appear to be more in conflict with subjective morality. Pro has been unable to provide reasoning for his trusting the reliability of his physical senses while distrusting the reliability of moral senses. Pro has not been able to refute the argument that I gave in favor of objective morality.

Pro has failed in carrying his/her share of the burden of proof in this debate, and therefore I think that we can reasonably conclude that morals are not subjective.

Sources:
http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by blackkid 3 years ago
blackkid
Congratulations.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by daley 3 years ago
daley
blackkid1Credo
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't come out and say that rape and torture PERIOD are not wrong, but just socially unacceptable, which is what his position entails
Vote Placed by Toviyah 3 years ago
Toviyah
blackkid1Credo
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BOP in this debate, so had to show that morality is subjective. Pro gave various arguments to support the claim, so the issue is whether these arguments stood up to Con's criticism. Did they? Well, I don't think so. Con responded well by noting that they were not arguments against objective morality per se, and so aren't really relevant. Con also made an argument for objective morality by citing our moral senses. How did Pro respond? Well, by saying that the subjectivity is grounded in circumstance (which could still be objective, by the way) and by positing a moral scepticism which was the underlying issue in the whole debate, but was not sufficiently backed up. I don't think that this is strong enough (with Con pointing out the inconsistencies) and so, after the 5 rounds, I Con came out on top.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
blackkid1Credo
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Objective morality is self evident.