The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points

there is no objective morality

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,301 times Debate No: 18351
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (12)

 

izbo10

Con

In this debate the burden of proof shall be on cerebral to show objective morality does not exist. He must prove beyond any doubt whatsoever it absolutely does not exist. He will start and can not debate in the last round. Either accept or stop your whining.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

Introduction
My opponent demands that I prove a negative, though he repeatedly states that such a challenge is logically invalid. As a result I would ask voters to consider if I am even bound by the terms of the debate.

As I see it there are three options.
1: No I am not, and the Burden of Proof actually falls either wholly or partially on my opponent.
2: Yes I am, but perhaps my opponent forfeits conduct.
3: Yes I am, I chose to accept the debate and have no right to whine about it now.

Though I would urge the voter to adopt position 1, I can not argue that options 2 and 3 are invalid. I simply ask that the voter considers this and I will not mention it again.

(NB: I never stated that I regarded this debate challenge to be objectively unfair).

---

Now onto the actual debate.

Definitions
My opponent has not provided any definitions and though it is very tempting to use that omission to pull a dirty trick I don't generally approve of such things and I don't want to give my opponent any opportunity to complain about strawmen or red herrings.

Objective: Having either physical or logical existence which is independent of the mind and not subject to personal bias or emotion. Factual, not mere opinion.

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

---

Arguments

1: The Argument Against Physical Objective Morality
To date no one has discovered Objective Morality as an actual physical object. The Hubble Space telescope has never photographed distant objective facts, no Scientist has ever accidentally invented a substance called virtue, or had to worry about disposing of an unwanted barrel of immorality.

Morality is moral conduct, an annoyingly circular definition and by definition a social construct. What form would the physical manifestation of a mind independent social construct take, the question is self-refuting and absurd.

I believe I have proven beyond any doubt what so ever that Physical Objective Morality does not exist.

2: The Argument Against Logical Objective Morality
Logic is of course already objective, logic concerns truth propositions that are mind independent and true regardless of emotion or personal opinion. The law of contradiction would tell us if something is a rock, it can not at the same time be not a rock. It's existence as a rock and it's existence not as a rock are mutually exclusive states, it has to be one or the other. This would be true regardless whether or not anyone agreed, disagreed or indeed if the universe contained no sentient life to even consider the issue.

Morality as we know concerns conduct, what is ‘good' conduct is moral, what is ‘bad' conduct is immoral. The Good is this context is moral, the bad in this context is immoral. Conduct is not a matter of objectivity, but it is a matter of societal construct. It is merely therefore the collective opinion of a social group. Opinions are not logical facts, therefore Logical Objective Morality is self-refuting. It can not exist.

To refute this point my opponent will have to demonstrate that though different societies have differing codes of conduct and therefore appear subjective, there does in fact exist a system of logical moral principles which when applied will determine whether the subjective values of that society are objectively true or false.

I predict that he may attempt to argue the quality of a moral system can be judged based on factors such as the negation of harm and the promotion of happiness, this is indeed a very sensible way to judge morality. Why does it fail to address the topic of this debate? Because considerations of harm and happiness are subjective and emotive, and do not concern neither logic nor objectivity.

I believe I have proven beyond any doubt what so ever that Objective Morality does not exist.
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

First of all, I would like to say my opponents conduct in the first round was terrible. He has accepted the debate on these terms and then complains about the unfairness of the rules. I mean he is arguing a position that states nothing is objectively wrong or right and he can't make it out of the first portion without complaining about something that he has no reason whatsoever to complain about as this could be subjectively fair to someone. Seriously, this is his position, he has stated we can not know murder is wrong, but he then asserts that a debate needs to be fair. I need clarification on that. Maybe he should give me an objective reason it is unfair.

Next, let me attack his actual arguments, he says objective morality is self refuting, in order for one to believe that their can be a right position in this debate we must presuppose truth. Then we must presuppose we are morally obligated to believe truth. He can not hold this position, if someone just wanted to guess he would be morally equal as their is no way to determine morality. So, we must presuppose we are morally obligated to believe in truth. That is outside of us. Sorry, he has no reason whatsoever, before we go further you must explain, by what standard are we to be objectively obligated to not just believe whatever the hell we want and in which case we can very well believe in objective morality and it could be correct.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

My opponents first paragraph from R2 appears to be a complete misrepresentation of me, he is attempting to create the implication that I hold to some standard of objective morality, or bait me into an expression of objective morality.

At no point do I believe that I used the term unfair, but the term logically invalid. A position that my opponent agrees with and refers to as "Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy", which he uses to justify his refusal to make positive arguments for the non-existence of God. Even if I had used the term 'fair' this would only be relevant if I was referencing an objective standard of fairness. which I have not expressed, I don't believe and I have disproven. My opponent is attempting to place objective moral statements into my mouth.

My opponent does not directly address either of my arguments against the existence objective morality, instead he side steps the issue by saying.

"Next, let me attack his actual arguments, he says objective morality is self refuting, in order for one to believe that their can be a right position in this debate we must presuppose truth. Then we must presuppose we are morally obligated to believe truth"

Firstly as my opponent is arguing in favour of objective morality he must by defintion presuppose truth, however what he fails to indicate is why we are morally obligated to believe truth, and how this would affirm his position or negate mine.

"before we go further you must explain, by what standard are we to be objectively obligated to not just believe whatever the hell we want and in which case we can very well believe in objective morality and it could be correct."

I do not see how the onus is on me to provide such an argument. I do not believe we are objectively morally required to believe in the truth, I have in fact shown how objective morals can not exist. My opponent fails to understand that if objective morality exists then it would exist independently of whether or not it was believed.

My opponents counter-argument does not logically follow, he has ignored and is therefore conceding my two arguments.

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

My opponent is obviously unsure of his position. He is making an argument assuming we all think that believing what is true is moral. He has no choice but to do this in his argument. That is what makes his position undefendable. You must first assume that people don't think it is morally acceptable to believe whatever they want and they value things like logic and evidence. I am not saying his argument is truthful, but it is probably what he believes is true. So, just because he doesn't see why the onus is on him, it does not mean it is not.

p1: cerebral believes nothing is objectively moral.
p2: people should place value on truth is a moral claim
c1: cerebral does not believe people are morally obligated to believe the truth.

Yet his whole argument comes from making the assumption that we must believe the truth. So, all I was asking was a little clarification as to how he got their, like he asked how I know murder is wrong in the past. He admits he thinks it is, I admit truth value is important, but his point was earlier not everyone has to accept this. Now, he doesn't feel obligated to say why flat out lying and believing in lies is important?

Now onto why their is objective morality:
Now, as a final part I will show you my syllogism which makes morals objective:

But, I need to demonstrate that what we have decided to label morals actual does go back to human well being. Lets take a look at moral "institutions" Judaism has convinced people that the Jewish law is a moral code. The way they have done so, is by convincing people that a "fact on the ground" is that Yahweh will punish them(not beneficial for them) if they do something against the law and reward(beneficial to society) them if they do something against the law. Christianity extended these concepts to the afterlife, and other religions include reincarnation to get there moral principles followed. What these religions have done is changed these "facts on the ground" to change what appears to benefit our well being. The same could even be said of hitler, while the germans were looking for an excuse for the problems after WW!, it was not hard to convince them that the "fact on the ground" was that the Jews were harming their well being as a society. So, now that we see morality has a direct link to human well being, onto the syllogisms:

P1:If something increases happiness and life span it is beneficial to human well being.
P2:Not murdering people increases human happiness and life span.
C1 Not murdering people is beneficial to human well being.

P3:Something is morally good if it benefits human well being.
c1=P3:not murdering people benefits human well being
C2:not murdering people is morally good.

The objective standard is human well being and we can measure that.

Neuroscience is now studying objective happiness. I will post a link to the google search results so you can take a look at the research.

Now, an argument he may try to make would be well prove that life is something we should desire. Well, for anyone that doesn't find life important, I would implore you to go to a store, buy a gun ,stick it in your mouth and shoot yourself. What? You don't want to do that? Well, then guess what you know exactly why life is important. Plus, if he wants to make that argument, he better be able to show why truth is important as it is definitely on the same ground as life.

I would implore everyone to vote for me because he has not met his standard of proof, his only objection is that it is not fair, though I am apparently under no objective standard to act fairly.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

Under the rules of this debate I am not supposed to debate in the final round, I presume my opponent means I may only repeat what I have already said.

Now for some reason however my opponent continues to misrepresent my argument, nowhere have I appealed to objective moral values despite my opponents constant insistence that I have. Or that I must do. Nowhere in this debate have I stated that we are under the any obligation to objective morals.

Also despite this being the final round he decides to create a new argument for objective morality, why wasn't this posted in R1 or R2? I can't address it, therefore the voter should ignore it, but amusingly enough I already pre-empted and discredited it in R1. I quite clearly predicted that my opponent would seek out a subjective value to use as the guide for an objective moral system, this is self-refuting. Well being is subjective, to value life is subjective.

My opponent has failed to address a single one of my arguments he may as well have forfeited each round. Arguments extended and I am strongly urge a vote for PRO.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Pro thinks he exists but really doesn't. He thaught he made arguments in a debate but was actually drawing in the sand in another dimension. Some of you see this debate and some only think they see a debate, but it isn't real. Pro forfited all rounds and lost.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
MIG you didn't votebomb. My comment applies to 3 people, THEY need to fork up actual RFD's....
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Actual RFD:
Conduct: While Cerebral might have whined about the conditions of the debate, Izbo10's argument in the final round cost him a point in conduct (whereas Cerebral did not, since he adhered to Izbo10's guidelines).
Spelling and Grammar: Even.
Arguments: Izbo10's argument, which I do not find that strong under survey, in the final round should be discounted since Cerebral could not address by his rules.

Therefore, Cebrebal arguments against objective morality stands, even with the two rounds where Izbo10 dallied with irrelevanices.

Sources: Neither used them. Cerebral used only a dictionary-website to post definitions, though that itself is not too crucial in the debate.
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
I understand that Izbo is a troll and all, but I don't believe that some of you read the debate, rather than skim, votebomb, then leave. Spelling and Grammar for example should be equal. Its not okay to become a troll yourself in the effort of denouncing a troll. Please vote fairly, always.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Morality comprises rules of behavior that govern the interactions of social animals for the good of the species. What is good for the species is determined by the nature of the animals. In particular, human morality is determined by human nature. Human nature is objectively defined by observation of human behavior. Therefore objective morality exists. Note that it existing does not mean that we know all the moral rules. Con's R3 argument about murder is valid, however.

Con wasted the first two rounds with irrelevancies, and did not refute Pro's contention that what is "good" is subjective. Con got around to making a valid argument in R3, but the rules forbid new arguments in R3. If Pro cannot refute in R3, then Con cannot make a new argument in R3. So Pro's position stands.

The debate conditions in the challenge are accepted by accepting the debate. Don't accept a debate with conditions you can't live with. In this case, it didn't matter.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Whenever I am depressed I will come back re-read this debate. The good thing about you is that you make others feel better about themselves.

I'll always accept a debate challenge from you.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
So again I ask who is it that doesn't understand the definition, just because you don't like where I take the argument doesn't mean it isn't valid, you have to show which premise you disagree with.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
I have an nothing is objectively morally right or wrong.

So here is the syllogism for you

premise1:everything is neither objectively morally right or wrong.
Premise2: fairness is a part of the set of everything
conclusion- fairness is neither objectively morally right or wrong.

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
I am not really interested in addressing the same questions again and again, feel free to google moral nihilism.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
then why would you expect me to be fair?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S and G is obvious. Con never made any arguments that make sense.
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 to Pro for idiotic debate restraints by Con and only introducing arguments in the final round. Args to Pro because Con never actually responded to them Also because Con copy-pasted his arguments from another debate. Pro wins sources for actually having one.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: A nice way to shift the bop
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Izbo10 should learn that playing games in the final round or tossing the burden of proof and complaining in the former two won't add up to a win....
Vote Placed by curious18 5 years ago
curious18
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Not sure why izbo10 didn't post his arguments right away in round 2. But even then, it wasn't good enough to prove anything.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually has an understanding of the English language.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con attempts to hypocritically shift the BoP to Pro, then accuses him of whining. S/G: Mayhaps not spelling but grammar to Pro, for obvious reasons. Arguments to Pro for actually attempting to argue legitimately, while Con strawmanned. Even though Pro only used one source for a definition, it is still one more than the zero Con provided.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Once he accepted the debate, Pro is bound by the terms. Whining is not a conduct violation, just a waste of space. Pro provided a claimed proof in R1 -- that since harm is subjective there cannot be an objective morality. Con wasted R2 with irrelevant comments and an invalid argument about truth. Pro pointed out the errors. In R3, Con made a new argument for objective morality, a sound argument. But Con's conditions rule out new arguments in R3, therefore the argument must be ignored. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't vote for trolls who insult others.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
izbo10Cerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO gets conduct points since CON creates a ridiculous BOP. CON then tells the opponent that PRO had bad conduct. And CON makes arguments in the last round. CON does not address any of PRO statements. PRO also negates CON's assumption that we are morally obligated to believe truth.