Morals are subjective not objective

The title of this debate (the stake in the ground) is, “Morals are subjective not objective.”

In Round 1 Pro stated, “I will make my case that morals can not be proven to be objective.”

Con will take the position Morals are also objective.

The primitives of morality is right (moral) or wrong (immoral). The “objective,” or "standard," in any group is to do the right thing to keep the 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 (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, 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. The 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 objective, or standard, of morality is the evolution of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the standard moral thread that runs through the tapestry of humanity.

Your right we strive for a certain standered but if morals are objective then can exist with out the need for human minds. If they are only subjective then it depends on diffrences of opinion and cultural norms. Different cultures have different moral standereds and different points of view, if morals were set in stone and objective they would be the same regardless of what we thought.

The objective of morality is doing the right thing relative to a reference or "standard" (aka social norms). If no standards are yet defined, then the base line, for embracing moral goodwill, is relative to the individual's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” of all the members within a group. Over time, the objective of morality is the evolution of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc.; hence, the social norms of the group.

In fact, it is the objective of morality to continue improving social norms as in the example of the cultural evolution of the US, from slavery, to woman's rights, to today's struggles with gay rights, etc.

I said objective morality not objective of morality, objective pertains to an object not an idea according to the very definition of objective.

Objective

1. Of or pertaining to an object. 2. Of pertaining to an object, contained in, or having the nature or position of, an object; outward; esternal; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever is exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, as opposed to being related to thoughts of feelings, and apposed to subjective.

Subjective

1. Of or pertaining to a subject. 2. Especially, pertianing to, or derived from, one's own consiousness, in distinction from external observation, relating to the mind, or intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or material excessively occupied with, or brooding over, ones's own internal states.

As you can see since morals are only the human conciousness and can't exist outside of that as an object it is not obejcetive.

We are parsing words here.

According to your definition of “Objective” in part, “... or having the nature or position of, ... external; ...or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, as opposed to being related to thoughts of feelings and opposed to subjective.”

Is not morality “having the nature or position” through the “object of thought or feeling” by doing the right thing, an “external” process, relative to social norms, and as a result, generates subjective feelings in others?

In Pro's closing statement:

“Morals derive from ones own conciousness and can differ from person to person therefore they are dependent on what the subject believes therfore they are subjective.”

Throughout this debate Pro was treating morals as values, where Con was treating morals as one's “external” process of right or wrong relative to another's Unalienable Rights.

The “object of thought” to do the right or wrong “external” event effecting others, relative to one's values or society's norms, has both elements of being objective and subjective.

In closing, I find it the moral thing to do, to thank Pro for a learning experience that I will value in future debates and in my personal life. I look forward to meeting Pro again, on the debating floor, for another constructive and learning experience.