frame

There is objective morality

Opening Argument

Persuade me that objective morality exists. I can't imagine how it is.
  1. Does objective morality exist?

    5 votes
    1. Yes
      60.00%
    2. No
      20.00%
    3. I don't know
      20.00%
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 46 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @Edril

    It's true some moral actions have a subjective component - it makes us feel good. However, that is only part of a larger picture. Saving a child from harm plays no role in your personal survival. It may make you feel good right up until the moment you die because of it. However, to call such an action subjective is to conflate the individual human with all of humanity. There's a category error in there. Humanity is the object of morality...the subject sometimes benefits from it, but that is merely a bonus.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +


SQL ERROR Commands out of sync; you can't run this command nowError getting name opp: Commands out of sync; you can't run this command now

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Stanford’s position on “morality” transcends humans to also exist among “non-human animals.”  According to Stanford, it would seem “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. Also, the genesis of a code of conduct is a function of the “Golden Rule” which is an outgrowth of “unalienable Rights,” which is an outgrowth of the physical constructal law (a recent discovery in thermodynamics). 
    Edril
  • @Mike

    Thanks for the info, I didn't know about the constructal law. Very interesting.
    Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the conclusions in that article. There is science to show that the unalienable rights are requisite for life, not that life is automatically entitled to them. Entitlement is not a scientific concept.

    Which is besides the point. Your main argument conflates morality with the survival of humans. Which, in general that's usually what we mean when we say morality. But this social construct was invented by us to preserve our own interests (survival). That is nearly the definition of subjective.

    Your work is ahead of you to show that the survival of humans is morally good, and show the objective standard that dictates this.

  • In order for one to believe that morality was not objective one would need to adopt and accept an argument against objective morality as objectively true. This is self contradictory.
    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

  • Medic said:
    In order for one to believe that morality was not objective one would need to adopt and accept an argument against objective morality as objectively true. This is self contradictory.
    How is it self contradictory for an objective argument against objective morality to exist?
  • Per dictionary.com
    "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: "


    1. objective morality would need to be uninfluenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.
    2. human morality is based on their personal interest in survival.

    3. therefore, human morality is subjective.


    You'll need to prove premise 2 to be false.




  • One cannot argue that subjective morality is the objective morality, if you follow me?

    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

  • Yes, I follow you. And that's my point.
    My stance is that morality is subjective, not objective.
  • These are definitions from Dictionary.com

    Objective: of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

    Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/morality

    Conduct: personal behavior; way of acting; bearing or deportment.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conduct

    Conformity: action in accord with prevailing social standards, attitudes, practices, etc.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conformity

    Virtuoso: conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/virtuous

    Principe: an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
    a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/principle

    Dictionary.com seems to say Morality is mostly what society thinks but is also says objective relates to something independent of thought. I think DIctionary.com says Morality cannot be Objective. I am going to check Webster dictionary now. : )


  • Thies are definitions from merriam-webster.com 
    Objective: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
    This is one of the definitions and is the most promising.

    Morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

    Conduct: a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct

    Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief 
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine

    Principle: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle

    I am not sure about this one. I don't think when you say objective you are taking about the medieval philosophy so a think no I cannot prove Morality can be Objective. 
    Edril
  • Edril said:

    Per dictionary.com
    "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: "


    1. objective morality would need to be uninfluenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.
    2. human morality is based on their personal interest in survival.

    3. therefore, human morality is subjective.


    You'll need to prove premise 2 to be false.




    Morality is about how to treat other people and not necessarily the self. You don't help protect a child from a bully or an abusive parent because it helps you survive. In fact, these actions may endanger your life. Premise two falls - as does the conclusion built on it.
  • @SkepticalOne

    Conduct is the way you treat people. Morality is the distinction between malevolence and benevolence.
    You can say that it's morally good to treat people nicely, but have no objective standard to say it is morally good.

    Protecting children certainly is a self preserving trait. it's evolutionarily beneficial for obvious reasons. Species that do not protect vulnerable offspring do not last.

    Speaking more generally, people do nice things because it makes them feel good. It's a self interest.

    Besides, you haven't shown an objective standard on which to base the statement, "helping people is morally good".

    Whether saving the child from the bully is good for me, or only good for the child, either way, it is only subjectively good, not objectively.

  • EdrilEdril 63 Pts
    edited December 2017

    Objective, adj: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

    Subjective, adj: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).


    To say something is objectively morally good, means it is morally good regardless of anyone's opinions of it.


    When we say it's morally wrong to kill someone, the standard we use to say that is most people think its bad. Its biased based on peoples thoughts.


    Objective moral benevolence would have to have a definition that transcends humankind that would be true even in the absence of human kind.


    Moral benevolence simply means most people agree that's its good. This is a subjective view point.



    I'm looking for objective, unbiased criteria to differentiate between a good moral and a bad moral.


  • I believe that I can never fully perceive reality and I am content with the limitations of my subjectivity.

    Thus, if there is objective morality I do not want to know of it as I much prefer making my own moral code that always paints me as the good guy.

    Checkmate.
    Edril
    I come to debate, I stay to troll,
    I leave to think, I return to brawl.
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