frame

Objective Morality

Opening Argument

Does it exist? If you believe so, please give reason for why.
Bis das, si cito das.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • kant

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • Medic said:
    kant
    Elaborate.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • C1: morality as understood by empiricists is a posterori (this morality would be relative)
    C2: however, this can only tell us how humans do act, not how they should act
    C3: therefore all morality must be a priori
    P1: therefore morality is objectve
    DrCereal

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • addendum: therefore morality as determined by relativism cannot be normative

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • I believe the concept of objective morality exists, as that being the idea that a specific doctrine or set of rules objectively states the morals one should follow. However there are thousands of diffirent books and teachings one can and does get their morals from, so that is why objective morality exists as a concept but not as a fact.
  • Medic said:
    C1: morality as understood by empiricists is a posterori (this morality would be relative)
    C2: however, this can only tell us how humans do act, not how they should act
    C3: therefore all morality must be a priori
    P1: therefore morality is objectve
    What do you mean by saying that a posteriori knowledge is "relative"?
    What do the C's and P stand for?

    I'll be back with a further critique (if one is called for) after I have adequately pondered over this argument.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • c is contention where p is proof

    the type of morality that is non-religious (ie the one we're arguing here) is either rationalist (ie a kantian idea of morality being able to be determined by logic alone) or empiricist (relative and is determined by human experience)

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • DrCerealDrCereal 99 Pts
    edited November 2017
    Medic said:
    C1: morality as understood by empiricists is a posterori (this morality would be relative)
    C2: however, this can only tell us how humans do act, not how they should act
    C3: therefore all morality must be a priori
    P1: therefore morality is objectve
    I think the largest problem I seem to have with this argument is the presupposition that there is a way one should act (almost as if there is an objective morality). It seems to me that this argument is simply begging the question with contention 2.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • On the contrary, it assumes that morality is a posterori and shows why this is absurd.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • “Morality” and “code of conduct” are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, in forming a group, the objective of morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective code of conduct, while following a code of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life of the group.
  • DrCerealDrCereal 99 Pts
    edited December 2017
    Medic said:
    On the contrary, it assumes that morality is a posterori and shows why this is absurd.
    Yes, but you also seem to assume that answers to "should" questions (i.e., morality) are knowable at all (i.e., that they are either a priori or a posteriori knowledge). Like I said, that's begging the question.
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • That's a more reasonable critique, but the purpose of morality as understood by Kant, is indeed to make value judgements (normative statements). If it doesn't do that then it's useless. Therefore, in order for morality to have purpose it must make normative statements.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • Medic said:
    That's a more reasonable critique, but the purpose of morality as understood by Kant, is indeed to make value judgements (normative statements). If it doesn't do that then it's useless. Therefore, in order for morality to have purpose it must make normative statements.
    Sorry, but I do believe my original statement you have responded to meant something that it was not intended to mean. I have fixed this now so you may want to reread it.
    If it says what you thought, then all is well, I suppose, though I have a feeling that you didn't read what wasn't there.
    Bis das, si cito das.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch