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

Some Things Are Objectively Right Or Wrong

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
SMendel has forfeited round #2.
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: 7/14/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 939 times Debate No: 116570
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I am looking for a moral relativist to hold a debate with on the nature of right and wrong.

I would like to clarify that 'objective' here is used in the sense that 'it is an objective fact that the moon exists'. In other words, it does not mean that we can know 100% that the moon exists, but that we have excellent reasons for doing so, given the mass of data at hand. We have objectively -- not subjectively -- better reasons for believing the moon exists than that it's (for example) a conspiracy by NASA.

On the same basis, I shall be arguing that mass genocide is objectively more immoral than saving the Amazon rainforest. Moral goodness has always concerned the welfare of living beings, and the former action demonstrably has a negative effect, and the latter action an intrinsically positive one.

Finally, I would like to ask the moral relativist if they would object to the sight of a man whipping a defenceless horse. Are your reasons for preventing the man whipping the horse any more valid than his?

I look forward to debating with you!


I'd like to start by saying that I am a nihilist and any "fact" as well as "proofs" are not a 100% correct interpretation of reality.
As far as the moon goes, I do believe that it exists because a lot of things we experience here on earth are dependent on the existence of the moon such as tidal waves, earth's wobble and it's similar composition of materials of earth. Some may argue that the moon isn't actually a giant piece of rock orbiting close to earth, but their reasons do not explain certain phenomena (listed above).
One of the easiest ways to justify the mistreatment of a group of people is by dehumanizing them. Most people would agree that the mass slaughter of "x" people is wrong, but some of the people carrying it out might honestly think that they are doing the right thing for country, God or some other cause. Just like some eco-activists rather see all of humanity die just to "save" earth is ridiculous to most people, but some do hold that belief. Out of both mass genocide and deforestation, you have to prove that morals are objective and that it actually matters. Everything and everyone dies. Some die sooner and some die later. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things if you kill a few billion organisms if the end result is the same anyways?
Moral goodness benefits one group and disadvantages another. Genghis Khan killed who knows how many millions for the benefit of his empire, but we tend to idolize him more than his victims. Hitler was killing the Jews and undesirables for more living space for the benefit of the German people, bad for eastern Europe, but good for the germans.
Deforestation may hurt one species but benefit another. Same thing
Would I personally object to a man whipping his horse for "x" reason? Depends on his reason. My reasons are valid enough for my actions to make sense for me, but not others. This is the case for everyone.
P.S. a horse can easily kill you if it wanted to. Have you seen its muscles?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kwbc 3 years ago
I'll post a similar debate to continue this one.
Posted by sem2093 3 years ago
Objectively right and wrong is undetachable from non objectively right and wrong as right and wrong are perpetually objectively debated. Even whether something is indeed a thing, nothing, or something else is objective in the realm of ideas. This forms our reality which based on our personal best understanding of reality whether it be through divine, natural, or conventional causes. In the case of genocide, we can't determine whether it was morally or objectively right or wrong for the bubonic plague to wipe out so many. In the reporting of the holocaust non jews believed the persecution of the jews was objectively right due to their perception of what will benefit their economy and save their unfairly treated country. Allied powers objectively disagreed with these actions on objective principles. Morals as well are made up of objective thoughts or observations. You're objectively right in calling green paint green however I may call it a mix of yellow and blue paint and because I can demonstrate by mixing the two does not make you or me any more objectively right or wrong.
Posted by SMendel 3 years ago
Hi TFroitz, I'm deeply interested in this and would welcome the challenge. Best, Sam
Posted by tfroitz1 3 years ago
I would really like to debate this question wirh you. Sadly I won't be able to do so over the next two weeks. If you are then still interested in debating that topic again I will pose you another challenge on this topic.
This debate has 6 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.