The Instigator
McHitler
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Philosophybro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Right and Wrong, When Pertaining to Morality, are Subjective to Personal Interpretation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
McHitler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 74534
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

McHitler

Pro

In this debate, I shall take the burden of proof. I propose that morality, our understandings of right and wrong, are subjective to external and neurological factors.

One instance of this is the separation of moralities in different cultures. People in India tend to view the cow as a sacred animal, and because of this, killing or harming a cow is immoral to those people. In other countries such as the U.S., cows are frequently used as livestock with little regard to them as an organism and a more prominent view of them as foodstuff.

The fact that people possess different opinions on what is moral proves in itself that morality is subjective to other factors as is not cemented into people by a deity or other means.
Philosophybro

Con

How does that prove subjectivity? Man still has his own will in objective morality he can make up morals, but that doesn't refute objective morals. A subject like physics has objective truths and a man can come around and say doing physics this way is correct. He is wrong physics isnt subjective.

Subjectivism is not coherent. Ethical words and ethical problems have meaning.This follows moral realism is true. Examine the phrase "Killing people for no reason is right" and "Killing people for no reason is wrong" Mchitler (funny name :D) cant say one is correct over the other. Mchitler believes "Killing people for no reason is neither wrong or right"

This position removes meaning from ethics. saying its not wrong or right is saying its not a moral issue. All is amoral. Amoral and moral are categories that we put statements in. Amoral rely on the meaningfulness of the moral if there is no moral category the opposing position is meaningless. It is common sense that killing people is a moral issue.

Therefore, moral issues have meaning and moral facts exist.
Debate Round No. 1
McHitler

Pro

I hate to explain this to you, but the laws of nature described by physics are in no way analogous or synonymous with the concept of morals.
McHitler can say "killing people for no reason is right" or "killing people for no reason is wrong" as well as having no opinion on the issue either way. This does not disprove subjective morality, it simply states that one can have no moral viewpoint of a subject, action, topic, etc. It's still a moral issue in general whether or not some people don't have a moral viewpoint of the issue.
Also.... one of your last statements seems a tad bit...incoherent. "Amoral rely on the meaningfulness of the moral if there is no moral category the opposing position is meaningless."
Could you elaborate on this? As for everything else, you have not provided any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that "moral facts exist." Through this claim it seems you have taken on a burden of proof yourself, which is unfortunate.

As for my burden, I will elaborate. Morality, by definition, is a system of values and ideals that exist within individuals or groups. By the very definition of morality one can see that it is subjective due to the language pertaining to individuals and groups.
I will await your response, preferably with some refutation or attempts at such towards my examples given in the beginning of this debate.
Philosophybro

Con

Philosophybro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
McHitler

Pro

To keep this fair, you may use your final argument to respond to my last post. I wish you the best of luck and hope that you return promptly. Good debate.
Philosophybro

Con

Sorry I forgot I was in this debate.

I hate to explain this to you, but the laws of nature described by physics are in no way analogous or synonymous with the concept of morals.

You misunderstand. Morals proposed by man are descriptions of an objective moral law. Invalidating your argument that differenrt cultures proves morallity is subjective.

it simply states that one can have no moral viewpoint of a subject, action, topic, etc. It's still a moral issue in general whether or not some people don't have a moral viewpoint of the issue.

Right and wrong are about facts. A subjectivist believes killing is not right nor wrong otherwise you'd be a moral realist. People can have differnrt opinions but you say objectivly morallity is amoral. There is no moral.

Could you elaborate on this?

Its simple amoral is without morals. If "Moral" is meaningless then without morals is meaningless.

you have not provided any evidence or reasoning to support the claim that "moral facts exist."

Everything said follows. Saying "Neither Y or X is B" is saying Y and X are not B. If B's meaning has basis in accpeting X or Y is B or not B then B is meaningless.

By the very definition of morality one can see that it is subjective

Morality is conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Where the rules come from isnt within the definition. Mchitler doesnt say why we need to accept the definition that assumes subjectivism His argument is circular.

Thank you!

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
salam.morcos
McHitlerPhilosophybroTied
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 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: Spelling/grammar: tied. Sources: Con provided one sources, but overall, not many sources provided. No points awarded. Conduct: I gave a point to Pro because Con ff a round Arguments: Actually Con put himself in a very tough position for accepting the BoP alone for an unfalslifiable claim. Con argued that "killing someone for no reason" is always immoral. Con's claim is weak, because you might "think" that it's always immoral, but you can't argue that if this world was difference that people wouldn't think this way. Pro could have brought better examples like "slavery was thought to be moral". Con could have argued that "Raping a child is objectively wrong". The arguments were weak so I awarded a tie. I contemplated awarding it to Con because Pro accepted the BoP. But I decided not to because Pro was denied a round to defend his claim.