The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

morality is 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 67359
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




morality is subjective... or else we would all have the same morals, like no one disagrees that a coca cola label is red...


I accept and looking forward to a mutual learning experience.
Debate Round No. 1


you don't hear people disagree that a coca cola label is red.. like commen rocks are solids is not a mystery


Con takes the position morality is absolute not “subjective.” Morality is binary having the following two states: moral (right) or immoral (wrong).

Morality is an outgrowth of Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, Morality is part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made.

Please bear with me as we take a journey following the traceability path from Thermodynamics (moments after the Big Bang) to Morality. The Laws of Thermodynamics deals with the direction of energy flow. Constructal Law deals with patterns and systems generated by this energy flow as a function of optimization relative to resistance, in the evolution of biology, physics, technology and social organization. At the biological level once alive, “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty” in the optimization relative to resistance), in “the pursuit (energy flow) of ” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness.” Hence, Thomas Jefferson's discovery, which he declared “self-evident” and used the label “Unalienable Rights” representing a polished version of this biological energy flow in his following celebrated statement, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The following is a video overview of the Constructal Law:

Continuing with our journey, morality is an outgrowth of life’s Unalienable Rights in group formation. The binary values of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights of the members within the group. Goodwill promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc, the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance (Constructal Law). A moral individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.

The empirical evidence of the diversity of language, beliefs, social norms, etc throughout history and today demonstrates morality is the thread that runs through the tapestry in group formation.

Again, morality simply refers to the binary state of Right or Wrong. These states generate mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the symphony of life, to name a few, in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and in addition, inter-specie relationships, such as those between humans and their pets.

Therefore, morality is part of the Laws of Nature, not “subjective.”
Debate Round No. 2



morality=contrasting self with others using thought and emotion

both information, mental, not physical

if you cant tell right from wrong you cant be immoral, and if like a rock one does not have intent, one can not be immoral

why don't we agree that coca cola labels are red when we can disagree about morality?

if morality is physical, you can show it to me in reality, like I can show you a soda is red, ai?


Con will address Pro's comments:

Pro stated, “reason+(and)intent=(is)morality.”

Reason” (group formation ) + “intent” (mutual positive-feedback ) = morality.
Reason” (group destruction) + “intent” (mutual negative-feedback) = immorality.
The simple binary states of morality.

Pro stated, “morality=contrasting self with others using thought and emotion.”

Morality = contrasting self with others using positive-thoughts and positive-emotions.
Immorality = contrasting self with others using negative-thoughts and negative-emotions.
Again the simple binary states of morality.

Pro stated, “if you cant tell right from wrong you cant be immoral, and if like a rock one does not have intent, one can not be immoral.”

If one can't tell right from wrong implies one is lacking a reference point---values. For example, an immigrant moves to a culture, where the values are such that it is immoral to cut down a tree. This immigrant does not yet know about such values and decides to cut down the big trees and not the small trees on his land. His neighbor may say that guy does not know the difference between “right from wrong.” Therefore, relative to the immigrant, he is not “immoral,” he did not know the values of said culture and therefore, “does not have intent.” Relative to his neighbor, the immigrant is immoral.

Pro stated, “why don't we agree that coca cola labels are red when we can disagree about morality?

Con is not sure about this question, but will give it a try; otherwise, please elaborate.

If all “coca cola labels are red,” the only way one will disagree, if one is color blind. The reason why many disagree about morality is education; hence, this debate. Most confuse morality with social values. Morality's binary state is the agent for both the genesis and compliance with social values.

Pro stated, “if morality is physical, you can show it to me in reality, like I can show you a soda is red, ai?

The force of gravity is part of the physical Laws of Nature. I can't show you gravity, but I can show you the result of gravity on objects in a gravitational field.

The binary force of morality is part of the physical Laws of Nature. I can't show you morality, but I can show you the result of morality on living-systems in a moral field.
Debate Round No. 3


the tree argument is about the law of the land not morality

why DO we agree that coca cola labels are red when we can disagree about morality?*

yes if ones perception of reality is faulty there can be a disagreement, so what this suggest is that to you everyone is "colour blind" when it comes to morality

where as... there is no debates going on about a coca cola label being red.. because we know its red, unlike the colour blind person, I don't have to imagine its red, like I have to imagine morality

you cant show me morality in reality, thus its not real, as its not true, like the label of a soda in my hand is red is true, hence no disagreement unless you are colour blind

I know gravity, I don't have to imagine it


Pro missed the point about the tree example. I won't belabor the point.

As for “coca cola labels are red,” it seems this debate is turning into a Coca Cola commercial. As for the color red, it may surprise Pro there are no colors in the electromagnetic spectrum. The perception of color is species related.

True, Con like Pro "don't have to imagine" gravity. Also true, Con like Pro "don't have to imagine" the cultures of German, Spanish, English, etc., for culture is the result of morality.
Debate Round No. 4


the tree is not about morality, if you burn down the hole forest and people are dependent on it then its about morality

a cola is an object, hence i don't have to imagine it necessarily, like i do with morality

you can never show me morality in reality, the actions of some one might be moral, but that comes from inside, not real, as the total opposite behavior can exist

there is no total opposite of the cola being red, that's what i know, that's what it is, as know is true, there is no doubt that maybe its slightly green or blue, because its real


Pro is fixated on objects and since morality is not an object (“you [Con] can never show me [Pro] morality”) therefore, according to Pro morality “comes from inside, not real.”

Con could “show” Pro a 12 inch ruler, and according to Pro's logic it is real. If Pro were to collect all the 12 inch rulers in the world, Pro may be surprise to find no two rulers will be equal. Therefore, a 12 inch ruler does not exist in the physical domain. A 12 inch ruler only exist in the abstract domain ("comes from inside"). Yet buildings, bridges, even computer chips, etc., would not exist without a ruler, a form of measurement.

Morality is a binary measurement in the building of cultures and social groups throughout the symphony of life. Since Morality is binary, it is not “subjective;” otherwise; cultures would not exist.

I thank Pro for bringing an important subject to the debating floor, and entering this debate in the “Science” category. Since Morality is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, morality should be a subject of study in a science course.

With that said, and in closing, the moral thing to do, is wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” having ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral "pursuit of Happiness.”
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i don't know what that is
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
Bu-But cultural relativism?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has used sources and arguments which satisfy his own position.