The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Morality is nonexistent.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
anoniy has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 960 times Debate No: 116466
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)




Morality isn't found through science. There is no code for it in our DNA. It was falsely invented by a society and is thus a mere social construct. Also, a being must require moral power to state morals, and as morality can't be generated to be moral, it thrives upon circular reasoning and thus doesn't exist in logic.


Go kill someone. What's wrong with that? 'Should' you do that?
Debate Round No. 1


There would be nothing wrong with me killing someone (in this scenario). Murder is only bad from morality, please see my last argument.


The circular argument is that you say morality was invented as a social construct, then say it is false. We need this social contract; if not to give meaning to life; at the very least, to make decisions. I assume you will agree that happiness should be maximized. Morality, or how we find it, is by definition the system of logic by which we make decisions. You assume we have to dictate our morals to others, thus becoming hypocritical, but what I'm arguing is that we should develop our own 'morality' to make decision; imposing our thoughts of 'morality' on others is wrong. Life is meaningless if you don't pursue the morality, here being a 'higher thing' (as in an ideal) that is actually correct and up for debate to discover, because otherwise we end up doing whatever we want which contradicts what others see as pursuing happiness; this ends up ultimately decreasing collective happiness (as in doing what we like/want to do). We need to accept what is generally good (moral, as generally agreed upon) in order to do things, giving us ultimately freedom we can't otherwise access, like this debate website. What I'm saying is that morality is really something we are determining, the ultimate morality is something we haven't reached yet. Morality has to exist and be perpetuated by people. Morality isn't like disgust (the feeling that something is bad, as a evolutionary self-defense mechanism), but, rather, something we determine logically. There are some things that we can all generally agree statistically is counter-productive. Going back to the illustration, killing is bad by logic because you destroy an unknown resource.
Debate Round No. 2


"The Circular argument is that morality is a social construct."

That's because your argument used circular reasoning.

"we need this social contract."

We also need a benevolent deity to solve our problems. A starving man in a desert needs food. That doesn't mean they exist.

"Morality is how we make decisions."

Many people would disagree. There are people with morals who are hypocrites.

"Imposing our thoughts of morality on others is wrong."

Well, then I guess I can kill whoever I want.

The rest lacks the understanding of this principle: Morality is based on what is ethical. Ethics are based on what is right and wrong. To determine such principles, we need a powerful source. But where does this source get this power? Many, if not all, people say that it just has this power. Things don't just happen, and since there aren't any causes besides self-imposed ones, this power must not actually have power, and thus, morality must be false.

You could argue this only applies to objective morality. This question I give you: if people have conflicting points about morality and each other's moralities say the other needs to die, who is correct? If all are correct, then is morality even existent?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sem2093 3 years ago
Saying morality doesn't exist is saying that no judgments are made of the correctness or falsity of something. It's mostly used in context when something appears in opposition to commonly held ideas of humanity which varies with culture and individuals. It can't not exist because it's an intangible idea and ideas or thoughts containing judgements surely exist.
Posted by SMendel 3 years ago
Hi Kyleniel! I just started a debate on this very topic and would love if you could take up the other side!
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Well you take the only choises you can take, ( burned a witch because witches are evil and hurt humans ). But you could be wrong. Not on a subjective level of course. Then you would not have done it.
On an objective / evolutional level it did not matter what you did. So objective morality is perfect in the sense that it does not exist as morality. just as an "forever" doing, that cant be wrong from an objective / evolutional perspective.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
"But it takes the only choises it can take"

That doesn't make it perfect canis, so dont give me those "..." like your spewing some obvious truths.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
In subjective morality you would have a choise, (if you believe in free will). In an objective form there is only the right choise / the wrong can not happen.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 3 years ago
If evolution "makes the only choices it can" then practically by definition it is not equivalent with nor does it contain morality it
Posted by canis 3 years ago
"Evolution is by no means perfect nor is it an entity that makes a conscious choice."..Of course its perfect ..It can never make a bad jugdments / always makes the perfect choises.
No its not an entety that makes conscious choises. But it takes the only choises it can take...And its why you are here...
Posted by Alex.oland 3 years ago
I think pro is arguing that an objective morality is nonexistent which is true actually.
Posted by Shadowstalker55 3 years ago
Actually, it is existent if you take into account Sigmund Freud"s psychological studies and psyche model of the Id, Ego, and Super-ego.

There have also been signs of animals showing morality as well.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Evolution is by no means perfect nor is it an entity that makes a conscious choice.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.