The Instigator
mmaherbexley
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Whatever

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...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 611 times Debate No: 24422
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

mmaherbexley

Pro

You pick the topic. Preferably an LD resolution, but really whatever.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Resolution: Morality is objective.

You're pro, and I'm con. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
mmaherbexley

Pro

Merriam-Webster defines morality as, "a doctrine or system of moral conduct." This system, in a sense, serves to innately define what is right and wrong. Objective is defined as "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers." Combining these two ideas, we can see that the resolution asks me to stand in affirmation of the idea that there is a moral system, or a system of right and wrong, that all people observe.

Con. 1:

SP A: The differences present from culture to culture are simply parameters of an objective morality.

Marc Hauser writes:

"A growing group of anthropologists and economists have taken the evidence discussed thus far as a signature of a uniquely human cognitive adaptation. Whereas we inherited a largely selfish nature from our ancestors, we also evolved a uniquely human psychology that predisposes us toward a different form of altruistic behavior: strong reciprocity.Social anthropologists are fond of pointing out cultural exceptions to apparently universal patterns of human behavior... In the same way that all humans share a universal grammar but might speak Chinese, English, or French, it appears that all humans share a universal sense of distribution fairness, with cross-cultural differences coupled to local quirks of exchange, justice, power, and resource regulation. The idea here, returning to our analogy with language, is that fairness is a universal principle with the potential for parametric variation and constraints. Cultures set the parameters based on particular details of their social organization and ecology, and these settings constrain what are optional forms of exchange and distribution."

SP B: There are certain things that all cultures find morally impermissible, permissible and obligatory.

Hauser furthers:


"To begin answering some of the unresolved issues raised by Petrinovich’s and Mikhail’s work, my students Fiery Cushman and Liane Young and I created the Moral Sense Test (moral.wjh.harvard.edu). Within the first year of opening the site, and with only an English version of the test, we had collected data from sixty thousand subjects, covering 120 countries. The sample included children as young as seven and adults as old as seventy; males and females; individuals with no education, primary school, secondary school, college, Ph.D.s, MDs, and JDs; atheists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs; and 120 ethnicities. Like Petrinovich and Mikhail, we also used trolley problems and other moral dilemmas involving questions of harm, rescue, and the distribution of beneficial resources such as medicine... We explored a wider range of dilemmas varying in content (not only trolleys, but stampeding elephants, burning houses, rescue boats, dispensation of limited drugs), wording (killing, saving, running over), the time allotted to answer (as much time as needed or speeded, requiring an immediate response following the question), and the identity of agents and targets (unknown bystander, test subject as agent or target/victim). For each dilemma, we asked whether an action was permissible, obligatory, or forbidden... Based on a sample of several thousand subjects taking the test, and responding to one of these cases as their first moral dilemma, about 90 percent said that it was permissible for Denise to flip the switch, whereas only about 10 percent said it was permissible for Frank to push the large person. Although these were all English speakers with access to the Internet, the judgments were consistent across subjects with widely different ages, ethnicities, backgrounds in religion, general education, and specific knowledge of moral philosophy." (In reference to the famous trolley problem)
 The two subpoints above give me sufficient ground to affirm. Since the apparent differences in moral systems are a result of a parametric shift from culture to culture, and we can see that there are universal ideas of right and wrong actions, I have fulfilled my observational burden. Feel free to ask any questions about the evidence in your argument, as I realize it is kind of cluttered and difficult to grasp without context. 

Sources:

Morality definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Objective Definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Evidence in subpoints:http://xa.yimg.com... (p. 83 and 127 for A and B, respectively)
InVinoVeritas

Con

Thank you for letting me know what Marc Hauser said. I'm very glad that he is so well-informed about your stance.

Can we start the debate soon?
Debate Round No. 2
mmaherbexley

Pro

Certainly.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Thanks. I look forward to it.
Debate Round No. 3
mmaherbexley

Pro

This should be great, once it gets off the ground.
InVinoVeritas

Con

And hopefully there are even more juicy excerpts from my main man, Marc Hauser.
Debate Round No. 4
mmaherbexley

Pro

mmaherbexley forfeited this round.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Nice. Glad I waited for it.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mmaherbexley 4 years ago
mmaherbexley
If you have an issue with that, that's cool. No one is forcing you to debate. The real debate doesn't even start until rebuttals anyway, so...
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I'm debating whether I should reply to the opponent's argument... It's just copy-and-pasted quotes.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
wow...mmaherbexley, did you really just Cut and Paste your entire argument...
Posted by mmaherbexley 4 years ago
mmaherbexley
Sources are funny like that.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Your arguments really appeal to me... In fact, it's as if they come right off of the page! Oh, wait...
Posted by mmaherbexley 4 years ago
mmaherbexley
Tricky bastard.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
mmaherbexleyInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit from Pro. Sources and arguments are also awarded seeing as the entirety of Pro's case were long excerpts of someone named Marc Hauser. In his entire argument, Pro only offered a single sentence of original argument and it was simply a sentence long summary of his Hauser extracts.