is morality subjective or objective?
Debate Rounds (4)
round 4.....conclusion/summary ( no new evidence)
A lot of the philosophers and thinkers I respect are coming around to the view that there can be an "objective" morality, which I take to mean this: rational consideration of the world"s facts will reveal criteria whereby things can be seen objectively as either right or wrong.
It may be hard to get those facts, but once you do the moral path would, it seems, be clear.
will be arguing that not everyone has the same views. Right and wrong is subjective. The evidence of this claim is evident by the existence of this site. We are on this site because we have views that are different possibly from the majority. We believe that something is moral while others don't. This debate is evidence itself. I believe right and wrong is based on perception. While my opponent believes that right and wrong are objective. He believes his views are right while I believe his views are wrong. This is evidence itself that right and wrong is based on perception. Below are some more reasons.
1. Morality is subjective.
morality-accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper.
So morality is basically our perception of right and wrong.
What is perceived to be right is subjective when talking in a singular sense. In a government witch makes laws about what is right and wrong it gets its ideas of what's right and wrong based on majority of opinion. If morality was objective and unchangeable and all ideas were generally accepted to be either right or wrong then all governments would have the same laws. In America all states would either allow gay marriage or all states would outlaw it. Laws can be changed. Witch means that not everyone has the same views on what is right and wrong. it also means that views of what is right and wrong tend to change. I may believe that pornography should be illegal only because porn is just like prostitution, but because there's a camera involved for some reason that makes it legal. Since porn is legal then prostitution should be legal. Majority of people who vote on this may believe differently than me. My opinion of what's right and wrong is not a general fact that everyone agrees on. If it was then 100% would either agree or disagree. As we know with most moral issues there's almost never a wipe out vote of 99-1 .Thus we can see that morality is subjective. A so called witch in Africa may believe it is right to kill children to make their magic stronger. The community may think its right to burn the witches ( witch happens alot) or majority of people somewhere may feel its right to burn a thief. 
( I am going to post this example, I warn anyone who watches these links these websites are extremely goreish and gruesome and may make you cry and or have nightmares, so I caution those weak of stomach to not watch this.)
While majority of people in Africa may believe it is objectionable to burn thief's and witches, America im almost positive that majority of us believe that no one deserves to burn alive nor could most watch it. Obviously a majority believes something is right while another majority believes something is wrong. One culture may see something as being justified while another culture may see that thing being taboo. This also proves morality is subjective. Witch proves that right and wrong is a perception.
2. Even if morality was objective, right and wrong is still a perception.
Even if some how my opponent proves morality is objective, right and wrong had to have been based on how we see things in a moral sense. Even if America is a democratic republic, its because America perceives this type of government to be the best for itself. oppossers of this type of government may think otherwise. But to get to either of these conclusions or any conclusion on any matter. We base our judgements on something based on how we perceive something ethically. people get their ideas based on different perceptions of the world and different situations were in. Witch is why we may have opposing opinions on things. So in the end to even have an ideal on something we had to have had something to influence our perception of the subject to reach the conclusion. Thus right and wrong is still a perception even if morality was objective.
Conclusively I have proven these unmistakable points being: 1. Morality is subjective , 2. Even if morality was objective, right and wrong is still a perception.
Thus I have proven my case and I believe that pro should be the victor of this debate.
In contrast, science has no add-ons. Once you find out that birds descended from dinosaurs, nothing else need be added to make this an objective truth (provisional truth, of course!).
To see the problem of objective morality, consider this question:
"Is it right or wrong to eat meat, even if the animals are humanely raised?"
How do you answer this, even using the criterion of "well being"? Whose well being is being assessed? Humans, animals, or both? And how do you trade off human with animal well-being? Is it immoral to kill a mosquito just because it bites you? What if the mosquito lives in a place where such creatures are disease-free? Does your annoyance trump the life of an animal? It doesn"t for the Jains.
Any criterion of "moral action," including "well being," will end up so nebulous that in many cases it becomes useless"as in the above.
Let me hasten to add that I agree with Sam"s view that morality"although I prefer to avoid the terms "moral or immoral""will nearly always jibe with what increases general well being. Like him, I am a consequentialist, and favor those actions that increase well being.
Where we differ is that I don"t think the criterion of "well being" is an objective one. It is a subjective choice, and can"t be chosen based on a scientific study of nature. (In contrast, the molecular structure of benzene can be objectively discerned.) And "well being" is sufficiently nebulous that it can be stretched to cover everything, in which case it becomes useless. Is it moral to torture a prisoner if there is a 1/1000 chance that he will reveal where a bomb is planted that will kill 100,000 people? You could argue, based on well being, that torture is not only mandated, but required, in this case. But one could also argue that "well being" includes the structure of a society, and it"s not good to create a society in which anyone can be tortured.
I"m just working out some thoughts here, so don"t take this as a final pronouncement. But I still have difficulty in seeing how "morality" can be objective in any sense. Once you decide on a criterion, of course, then all else follows. But it is the case that "well being" always comports with what our notion of morality is? And if it doesn"t, should we revise our notion of morality to bring it in line with "well being"? Or, if you agree that morality is objective, do you have some criterion other than well being?
But I emphasize again, that, as a consequentialist and determinist, I don"t favor the notion of "moral responsibility," which I see as inimical to needed legal reforms. I would favor, instead, using the term "actions that are either good or bad for society." This still leads to punishment on the grounds of keeping bad people out of society, as well as rehabilitating them and deterring others. But it eliminates the notion of retributive punishment, which in my view adds nothing to society.
Finally, it"s clear that under the standard of "general well being," nearly all of us would be acting morally by giving a third of our income to the poor and starving people of the world. Yet we don"t. Are we then immoral? Or are we going to selfishly argue that well being is actually maximized if we"re able to keep as much of our money as we want, and bestow its largesse on our family and friends?
I thought that cons introduction and case sounded quite familiar. So I took it upon myself to Google it. Woe and behold his entire case is the exact word for word body and introduction of this article.......
I do not believe its ethical to rebuttal a plagiarized case because the actual author is not here to defend his views.
I do not know if the viewers are able to see the time each round was posted but, my opponents response to round one was posted about 2 to 3 minutes after I posted my round 1... I think its more than a coincidence of such a fast post and remarkably same sentence structure and wording of another article to be called chance.
Not to mention this is a violation of DDO rules and a breach of conduct. Since my opponent provided no original argument he has no case thus must forfeit his stance.
pros points stand undefeated thus all points of vote should be given to pro.
Ive got better things to do.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagerized and. Failed to make his own arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.