Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do you believe in Subjective Morality?

SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 1:51:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yep. Now, isn't it the craziest idea in the world that I actually believe that my opinions are no better than yours? It's really a funny thing.

And, yes, I do tend to argue against killing or maiming someone since I am, for the most part, a psychologically healthy human being and, thusly, posses empathy. As it were to say: I strongly dislike killing or maiming people, you know. That's just me, though.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 2:01:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

Why do you complain about something? Is it because you don't like it? Hence why we complain. We don't like whatever we're complaining about. I don't see why this matters.

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

Nothing. My sense of morality only matters to me.

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

There still is. We're pitting our ideas against one another to try and prove whose is more correct than the other. Of course, neither of us could be right, but regardless one would still have to be better than the other.

Really, all it comes down to is simply shown by this: Do you think that murder is bad? I wil presuppose you say yes to show my point. If you were to say yes, I could simply say no, and our concepts of morality would be clashing and be different. Since our concepts of morality would be different, objective morality is thusly disproven.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 2:22:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

A rapist might think rape is subjectively good. I would disagree. However, I don't have some meta-ethical bludgeon by which to prove my point. That doesn't mean I won't take measures to stop the rape.

"If you want to maintain minimal levels of violence in a society, then you ought to..." is by no means an arbitrary exercise.

It is SUBJECTIVELY based on assuming a conditional goal. With that, we can then derive practical moral applications.

Other than creating an inflexible dogma, what benefit exactly do you claim "objective morality" has when discussing social issues? People can agree on conditional goals even if they disagree on moral values.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 8:42:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sigh.

You cats still aren't getting it.

Your claims that our morals are specific to our cultural arrangement is specious, because they are ubiquitous among all cultures (even cannibals, for example, have a concept of murder), and there are no civilizations of other beings against which we can compare ourselves. Therefore, you're essentially stating that there because there could hypothetically be another type of arrangement, there is hypothetically another way of looking at things. That's absurd.

You come to a debate site because you know what a debate is, you like it, and you want to engage in several of them in one way or another. If you figured that everything were subjective, "debate" as something distinct that you can presume is to your liking should not exist.

Objective morality does not mean a set of rigid, unquestionable rules. That's stupid -- no such thing exist, anywhere, for anything. Morality is basically an approach based on what is true, right, correct, and just. To say that there must be rules for "good" is to also say that there must be rules for "evil."

So, are you saying that there are rules to what you must do in order to be evil, or are you contending that evil doesn't exist?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 9:11:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 8:42:10 AM, Ren wrote:
Sigh.

You cats still aren't getting it.

Your claims that our morals are specific to our cultural arrangement is specious, because they are ubiquitous among all cultures (even cannibals, for example, have a concept of murder), and there are no civilizations of other beings against which we can compare ourselves. Therefore, you're essentially stating that there because there could hypothetically be another type of arrangement, there is hypothetically another way of looking at things. That's absurd.:

You have to consider that that murder, by its definition, is deemed wrong. So saying that everyone thinks murder is wrong is a tautology and is functionally useless in using it as a way to demonstrate an objective moral value.

Where the rubber meets the road is determining what constitutes murder, which you will find is very much subjective to cultural influence. Burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her is generally viewed as flatout murder in Western nations, but is perfectly acceptable in many middle eastern nations.

Objective morality does not mean a set of rigid, unquestionable rules. That's stupid -- no such thing exist, anywhere, for anything. Morality is basically an approach based on what is true, right, correct, and just. To say that there must be rules for "good" is to also say that there must be rules for "evil.":

That's ridiculous, of course it means a rigid set of unquestionable values. That's what it means, whereas a subjective morality is based upon extenuating circumstances or cultural dictates.

So, are you saying that there are rules to what you must do in order to be evil, or are you contending that evil doesn't exist?:

No, they're saying evil is subjective and relative to an individuals perception. Even supposing that morals were absolute, you couldn't prove which morals are relative and which are absolute. So it's useless either way.

If I say something is evil, I'm merely expressing an opinion, and I am hoping others can identify with my rationale. Doesn't mean I'm right in absolute sense, nor does it mean I'm wrong in an absolute sense.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:08:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

The grounds of the morality to which I adhere to. Subjective moraltiy =/= amorality.


What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

It's mine. That's what.


In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

In all seriously, who said subjective morality was necessarily an individual thing? Generally, subjective morality applies to groups of like-minded people in which case the morality applies to all the people that agree to it but doesn't apply outside that group.

Consider, the morality of eating dogs in the West vs. the East.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 3:15:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 2:22:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

A rapist might think rape is subjectively good. I would disagree. However, I don't have some meta-ethical bludgeon by which to prove my point. That doesn't mean I won't take measures to stop the rape.

On what grounds do you disagree? Assuming morality is truly subjective, then a rapists subjective opinion is morally equivalent to your subjective opinion. You could, like Zaradi, take measures to stop rape because you don't like rape. But even then, why not? Because it causes suffering? Why is it that you don't like suffering? Because it lowers your dopamine and oxycotin levels based on some subjective wiring of your brain based off of how you were brought up?

That doesn't give your sense of morality any sort of meaning over another. You can simply say "I don't like rape, therefore I think it's wrong" but that's literally as meaningless as saying "I don't like Justin Bieber, therefore Justin Bieber is wrong".


"If you want to maintain minimal levels of violence in a society, then you ought to..." is by no means an arbitrary exercise.

Actually, no. The "ought" does not exist. Even if you want to maintain minimal levels of violence in society there exists no ought that dictates you should then do X. The ought simply does not exist because there exists no objective morality.

It is SUBJECTIVELY based on assuming a conditional goal. With that, we can then derive practical moral applications.

Other than creating an inflexible dogma, what benefit exactly do you claim "objective morality" has when discussing social issues? People can agree on conditional goals even if they disagree on moral values.

The problem with subjective morality is that it's an elaborate cop-out. On what grounds could someone claim X is wrong and Y is right when both or equally right and wrong? The only way to do so would be to presuppose some transcendent code for how things should run.

Asserting that objective morality exists is beneficial in that it gives those who are discussing social issues an actual ground for which to debate. Debating under the presupposition that morality is subjective would be equivalent to arguing that you like Justin Bieber so much that your opponent likes Justin Bieber. It'd be meaningless and impossible. Anyone who believes in subjective morality and argues that something like rape is wrong assumes an impossible BOP. Because all their opponent would have to do is point out that morality is subjective and that they think rape is morally permissible.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 3:19:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 10:08:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

The grounds of the morality to which I adhere to. Subjective moraltiy =/= amorality.


What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

It's mine. That's what.

That doesn't give your morality any superiority over another. It gives you a feeling of superiority, perhaps, but doesn't give you any objective superiority.

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

In all seriously, who said subjective morality was necessarily an individual thing? Generally, subjective morality applies to groups of like-minded people in which case the morality applies to all the people that agree to it but doesn't apply outside that group.

Consider, the morality of eating dogs in the West vs. the East.

How is this relevant?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 3:21:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 2:01:09 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

Why do you complain about something? Is it because you don't like it? Hence why we complain. We don't like whatever we're complaining about. I don't see why this matters.

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

Nothing. My sense of morality only matters to me.

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

There still is. We're pitting our ideas against one another to try and prove whose is more correct than the other. Of course, neither of us could be right, but regardless one would still have to be better than the other.

Really, all it comes down to is simply shown by this: Do you think that murder is bad? I wil presuppose you say yes to show my point. If you were to say yes, I could simply say no, and our concepts of morality would be clashing and be different. Since our concepts of morality would be different, objective morality is thusly disproven.

Actually, you haven't proven that objective morality does not exist. You've proven that objective perception of moraliy does not exist, sure. That's fine. But you haven't proven that there is no sort of transcendent morality that dictates what is right and wrong.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 4:45:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 4:25:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Morals are like steak tasting good, sure it's subjective, but that doesn't make it any less true to most people.

Assuming that morality is subjective, I'd agree with you. Which is precisely my point. There's no point in arguing against or for gay marriage, abortion, or anything. Because you'd be trying to fulfill an impossible BOP. Which would be to prove that your subjective morality is superior to someone else's subjective morality.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 6:43:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 9:11:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/26/2012 8:42:10 AM, Ren wrote:
Sigh.

You cats still aren't getting it.

Your claims that our morals are specific to our cultural arrangement is specious, because they are ubiquitous among all cultures (even cannibals, for example, have a concept of murder), and there are no civilizations of other beings against which we can compare ourselves. Therefore, you're essentially stating that there because there could hypothetically be another type of arrangement, there is hypothetically another way of looking at things. That's absurd.:

You have to consider that that murder, by its definition, is deemed wrong. So saying that everyone thinks murder is wrong is a tautology and is functionally useless in using it as a way to demonstrate an objective moral value.

Where the rubber meets the road is determining what constitutes murder, which you will find is very much subjective to cultural influence. Burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her is generally viewed as flatout murder in Western nations, but is perfectly acceptable in many middle eastern nations.

Objective morality does not mean a set of rigid, unquestionable rules. That's stupid -- no such thing exist, anywhere, for anything. Morality is basically an approach based on what is true, right, correct, and just. To say that there must be rules for "good" is to also say that there must be rules for "evil.":

That's ridiculous, of course it means a rigid set of unquestionable values. That's what it means, whereas a subjective morality is based upon extenuating circumstances or cultural dictates.

So, are you saying that there are rules to what you must do in order to be evil, or are you contending that evil doesn't exist?:

No, they're saying evil is subjective and relative to an individuals perception. Even supposing that morals were absolute, you couldn't prove which morals are relative and which are absolute. So it's useless either way.

If I say something is evil, I'm merely expressing an opinion, and I am hoping others can identify with my rationale. Doesn't mean I'm right in absolute sense, nor does it mean I'm wrong in an absolute sense.

If murder is a cultural interpretation, then how can we possibly have an opinion about murder that is culturally accepted in another country? How could we even make the distinction "cultural," if that were the case? I mean, it seems to me that, as there are all sorts of rationales for murder, including religion, opinion, idealism, and insanity -- which are all essentially the same thing -- one can include culture as yet another rationale for murder.

But, the reason why you're even presenting that example to me, is because you understand that I've likely made that distinction as well, and would thus be shocked and appalled that they would do that in the Middle East (because, of course, I didn't know that >.>) and would thus supposedly be compelled to acknowledge that this ubiquitous conception of "murder" is not quite so ubiquitous, culturally speaking.

However, it is, people just tend to do it anyway and make excuses. That doesn't mean that the excuses they make are at all valid, and thus, does not detract from what murder rationally and objectively is.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 6:46:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 4:25:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Morals are like steak tasting good, sure it's subjective, but that doesn't make it any less true to most people.

No, "morals" are not like that at all. Moral, as a noun, is the 9th definition down in the dictionary (the first indicate it's primary use as an adjective), and are as follows:

noun
9.
the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10.
the embodiment or type of something.
11.
morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

So, no, morals are absolutely nothing like "dur, stekk tast gud."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:57:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 4:45:10 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 3/26/2012 4:25:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Morals are like steak tasting good, sure it's subjective, but that doesn't make it any less true to most people.

Assuming that morality is subjective, I'd agree with you. Which is precisely my point. There's no point in arguing against or for gay marriage, abortion, or anything. Because you'd be trying to fulfill an impossible BOP. Which would be to prove that your subjective morality is superior to someone else's subjective morality.

I disagree, you are running under the assumption that everyone is completely different and every opinion is based on the individual mind (this is false). We are all human, and most of us share the same biological responses. Saying steak tastes good may seem like a subjective claim to the individual, but it's rooted in some objective biological truth regarding taste buds and cows that most of us share.

Morality is the same thing. I don't know if they would be subjective or objective now that I think about it, the line is blurred.

Regardless, claiming we need a supernatural deity to be the source of morality is utterly outrages.

Some people don't like steak, just like some people don't like being moral
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 7:58:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 4:45:10 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 3/26/2012 4:25:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Morals are like steak tasting good, sure it's subjective, but that doesn't make it any less true to most people.

Assuming that morality is subjective, I'd agree with you. Which is precisely my point. There's no point in arguing against or for gay marriage, abortion, or anything. Because you'd be trying to fulfill an impossible BOP. Which would be to prove that your subjective morality is superior to someone else's subjective morality.

*Some people don't like steak, just like some people don't like being moral...That doesn't mean that most people's opinions aren't based on common biological response shared by most humans.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 9:18:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, to quote William Lane Craig:

"Objective Moral Values Require God

So consider, first, moral values. Traditionally moral values have been based in God, who is the highest Good. But if God does not exist, what is the basis of moral values? In particular, why think that human beings have moral worth? The most popular form of atheism is naturalism, which holds that the only things that exist are the things described by our scientific best scientific theories. But science is morally neutral; you can't find moral values in a test tube. It follows immediately that moral values don't really exist; they're just illusions of human beings.

Even if the atheist is willing to go beyond the bounds of science, why think, given an atheistic worldview, that human beings are morally valuable? On a naturalistic view moral values are just the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons exhibit cooperative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousin Homo sapiens exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result of sociobiological pressures there has evolved among Homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality," which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on an atheistic worldview, there doesn't seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. If I we were to rewind the film of human evolution back to the beginning and start anew, people with very different set of moral values might well have evolved.

For us to think that human beings are special and our morality objectively true is to succumb to the temptation to speciesism, an unjustified bias toward one's own species. So if there is no God, any basis for regarding the her morality evolved by Homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. Take God out of the picture, and all you're left with is an apelike creature on a speck of solar dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur.

Objective Moral Duties Require God

Second, now consider moral duties. Traditionally our moral duties were thought to spring from God's commandments, such as the Ten Commandments. But if there is no God, what basis remains for objective moral duties? On the atheistic view, human beings are just animals, and animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it does not murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with her but it does not rape her - for there is no moral dimension to these actions. They are neither prohibited nor obligatory.

So if God does not exist, why think that we have moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes these moral duties upon us? Where do they come from? It's hard to see why they would be anything more than a subjective impression resulting from societal and parental conditioning.

Certain actions such as incest and rape may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human development have become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to show that rape or incest is really wrong. Such behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom. The rapist who goes against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably, like the man who belches loudly at the dinner table. If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no objective moral law that we must obey."

The last underlined part is particularly interesting.

In short, there would be no philosophically satisfying reason, given atheism, to sincerely complain about any sort of "moral" "injustice" and the like. In fact doing so would be inconsistent with an atheistic worldview that asserts moral subjectivity. Yet almost all the notorious New Atheists (especially Dawkins and Hitchens) are guilty of just this. And, understandably so, I would say - such a depraved worldview is utterly unlivable.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:03:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 9:29:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/26/2012 9:22:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I love it when new members suddenly barge in, guns all ablaze.

I'm sorry :(

Don't let anyone discourage you... Which I don't Freedo was trying to do
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:05:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 10:03:48 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/26/2012 9:29:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/26/2012 9:22:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I love it when new members suddenly barge in, guns all ablaze.

I'm sorry :(

Don't let anyone discourage you... Which I don't believe Freedo was trying to do

fixd
Debate.org Moderator
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 10:05:30 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/26/2012 10:03:48 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/26/2012 9:29:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/26/2012 9:22:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I love it when new members suddenly barge in, guns all ablaze.

I'm sorry :(

Don't let anyone discourage you... Which I don't believe Freedo was trying to do

fixd

Hehe, no problem. I sensed the humor in his post and responded humorously as well. No offense was taken at all.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 10:40:07 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/26/2012 10:05:30 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/26/2012 10:03:48 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 3/26/2012 9:29:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/26/2012 9:22:51 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I love it when new members suddenly barge in, guns all ablaze.

I'm sorry :(

Don't let anyone discourage you... Which I don't believe Freedo was trying to do

fixd


Hehe, no problem. I sensed the humor in his post and responded humorously as well. No offense was taken at all.

ahh good good.. Welcome to the site
Debate.org Moderator
Zaradi
Posts: 14,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 10:55:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 3:21:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 3/26/2012 2:01:09 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

Why do you complain about something? Is it because you don't like it? Hence why we complain. We don't like whatever we're complaining about. I don't see why this matters.

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

Nothing. My sense of morality only matters to me.

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

There still is. We're pitting our ideas against one another to try and prove whose is more correct than the other. Of course, neither of us could be right, but regardless one would still have to be better than the other.

Really, all it comes down to is simply shown by this: Do you think that murder is bad? I wil presuppose you say yes to show my point. If you were to say yes, I could simply say no, and our concepts of morality would be clashing and be different. Since our concepts of morality would be different, objective morality is thusly disproven.

Actually, you haven't proven that objective morality does not exist. You've proven that objective perception of moraliy does not exist, sure. That's fine. But you haven't proven that there is no sort of transcendent morality that dictates what is right and wrong.

The simple fact that we are debating over what morality is means we have a differing opinion of what morality is. Thus, morality CANNOT be objective. If morality were objective, we wouldn't be having this debate. Actually, we wouldn't be able to have ANY debate, as wel would all agree on the same thing and know intuitively who was right and who was wrong, allowing no room for differentiating opinions. The very fact this site exists and functions as intended is testemony to the subjectivity of morality.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 11:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 2:01:09 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

Why do you complain about something? Is it because you don't like it? Hence why we complain. We don't like whatever we're complaining about. I don't see why this matters.

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

Nothing. My sense of morality only matters to me.

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

There still is. We're pitting our ideas against one another to try and prove whose is more correct than the other. Of course, neither of us could be right, but regardless one would still have to be better than the other.


....you think that one moral system could be better or more correct than another without an external standard to which you can compare them to?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 11:12:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gah, I hate this question. Define 'believe'...

I'm on the fence about morality, but every time I ask myself the relevant questions, I come back to nihilism.

Yes, subjective morality exists. You can't even argue against that. Yes, I do have opinions on what is and isn't favourable to me and the people I care about. Do my opinions ultimately have any worth? No, not in the slightest.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 11:54:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 10:55:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/26/2012 3:21:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 3/26/2012 2:01:09 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

Why do you complain about something? Is it because you don't like it? Hence why we complain. We don't like whatever we're complaining about. I don't see why this matters.

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

Nothing. My sense of morality only matters to me.

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

There still is. We're pitting our ideas against one another to try and prove whose is more correct than the other. Of course, neither of us could be right, but regardless one would still have to be better than the other.

Really, all it comes down to is simply shown by this: Do you think that murder is bad? I wil presuppose you say yes to show my point. If you were to say yes, I could simply say no, and our concepts of morality would be clashing and be different. Since our concepts of morality would be different, objective morality is thusly disproven.

Actually, you haven't proven that objective morality does not exist. You've proven that objective perception of moraliy does not exist, sure. That's fine. But you haven't proven that there is no sort of transcendent morality that dictates what is right and wrong.

The simple fact that we are debating over what morality is means we have a differing opinion of what morality is. Thus, morality CANNOT be objective. If morality were objective, we wouldn't be having this debate. Actually, we wouldn't be able to have ANY debate, as wel would all agree on the same thing and know intuitively who was right and who was wrong, allowing no room for differentiating opinions. The very fact this site exists and functions as intended is testemony to the subjectivity of morality.

You think 2+2 is 4? I think it's 5. The fact that we both disagree and we can have this debate means math cannot be objective.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 12:07:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 11:54:03 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/26/2012 10:55:54 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/26/2012 3:21:12 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 3/26/2012 2:01:09 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

Why do you complain about something? Is it because you don't like it? Hence why we complain. We don't like whatever we're complaining about. I don't see why this matters.

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

Nothing. My sense of morality only matters to me.

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

There still is. We're pitting our ideas against one another to try and prove whose is more correct than the other. Of course, neither of us could be right, but regardless one would still have to be better than the other.

Really, all it comes down to is simply shown by this: Do you think that murder is bad? I wil presuppose you say yes to show my point. If you were to say yes, I could simply say no, and our concepts of morality would be clashing and be different. Since our concepts of morality would be different, objective morality is thusly disproven.

Actually, you haven't proven that objective morality does not exist. You've proven that objective perception of moraliy does not exist, sure. That's fine. But you haven't proven that there is no sort of transcendent morality that dictates what is right and wrong.

The simple fact that we are debating over what morality is means we have a differing opinion of what morality is. Thus, morality CANNOT be objective. If morality were objective, we wouldn't be having this debate. Actually, we wouldn't be able to have ANY debate, as wel would all agree on the same thing and know intuitively who was right and who was wrong, allowing no room for differentiating opinions. The very fact this site exists and functions as intended is testemony to the subjectivity of morality.

You think 2+2 is 4? I think it's 5. The fact that we both disagree and we can have this debate means math cannot be objective.

Haha, OMG, you just said in three sentences what I was about to say in three paragraphs.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 12:15:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 11:12:02 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Gah, I hate this question. Define 'believe'...

I'm on the fence about morality, but every time I ask myself the relevant questions, I come back to nihilism.

Yes, subjective morality exists. You can't even argue against that. Yes, I do have opinions on what is and isn't favourable to me and the people I care about. Do my opinions ultimately have any worth? No, not in the slightest.

Actually, you can only argue that subjective *perception* of morality exists. Just like our subjective perception of quantum physics (there are about 10 different interpretations of QM) exists. Furthermore, our perception of the world is subjective as it is limited to how we perceive. I see the sun rising in the morning and moving to the other side of the sky in the evening. So did the sun move? I think it did. But no, it didn't actually move. The earth is the thing that was moving. You see, subjectivity in perception exists. But that does not prove that actual objective morals don't exist.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2012 12:18:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/26/2012 3:15:54 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 3/26/2012 2:22:04 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/25/2012 10:37:25 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
If so, on what grounds do you complain of anything?

What gives your sense of morality any superiority over another?

In my opinion, if you believe in subjective morality, there's really no point to debating about social issues. Because essentially you're pitting your arbitrary and subjective opinion against someone else's arbitrary and subjective opinion.

A rapist might think rape is subjectively good. I would disagree. However, I don't have some meta-ethical bludgeon by which to prove my point. That doesn't mean I won't take measures to stop the rape.

On what grounds do you disagree? Assuming morality is truly subjective, then a rapists subjective opinion is morally equivalent to your subjective opinion. You could, like Zaradi, take measures to stop rape because you don't like rape. But even then, why not? Because it causes suffering? Why is it that you don't like suffering? Because it lowers your dopamine and oxycotin levels based on some subjective wiring of your brain based off of how you were brought up?

That doesn't give your sense of morality any sort of meaning over another. You can simply say "I don't like rape, therefore I think it's wrong" but that's literally as meaningless as saying "I don't like Justin Bieber, therefore Justin Bieber is wrong".


"If you want to maintain minimal levels of violence in a society, then you ought to..." is by no means an arbitrary exercise.

Actually, no. The "ought" does not exist. Even if you want to maintain minimal levels of violence in society there exists no ought that dictates you should then do X. The ought simply does not exist because there exists no objective morality.

It is SUBJECTIVELY based on assuming a conditional goal. With that, we can then derive practical moral applications.

Other than creating an inflexible dogma, what benefit exactly do you claim "objective morality" has when discussing social issues? People can agree on conditional goals even if they disagree on moral values.

The problem with subjective morality is that it's an elaborate cop-out. On what grounds could someone claim X is wrong and Y is right when both or equally right and wrong? The only way to do so would be to presuppose some transcendent code for how things should run.

Asserting that objective morality exists is beneficial in that it gives those who are discussing social issues an actual ground for which to debate. Debating under the presupposition that morality is subjective would be equivalent to arguing that you like Justin Bieber so much that your opponent likes Justin Bieber. It'd be meaningless and impossible. Anyone who believes in subjective morality and argues that something like rape is wrong assumes an impossible BOP. Because all their opponent would have to do is point out that morality is subjective and that they think rape is morally permissible.

What you call a "dislike" of rape is what I call a neurological disgust impulse coupled with evaluations of actions within a certain context (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...).

That's apples and oranges from whether I "like" a musician or his music.

It is, as you mention, triggered by changes in neurotransmitters levels dependent on experience.

I never claimed to have some meta-ethical superiority over others. I specifically claim NOT to have that.

I claim to be a human being with a neurologically based moral reasoning ability. I don't particularly give a f*ck if a rapist tells me he can derive his rationale from first order logic and empirical studies. I don't give a f*ck if a rapist refuses to see the legitimacy of my viewpoint because I am relying on decisions based on a collection of neurotransmitters and brain matter.

An "ought" statement can gain a truth value if it can derive from an agreed goal. If a hundred people get together and say "we all want to structure things to lead to minimal levels of violence in daily interaction" then we can use empirical reality to determine how we ought to act SPECIFIC to that goal.

"You ought not die" has no truth value.
"If you want to live, you ought not do what will make you die" has a truth value.

You don't need to presuppose a transcendent code. You only need to presuppose a goal. That goal can be as simple as "If you want to survive in environment x..."

Deriving actions from goals leads to innovation and efficiency. Deriving actions from codes leads to conservative intransigence and inflexibility in the face of constant change.