There is objective morality - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

There is objective morality
in Philosophy

By EdrilEdril 66 Pts
Persuade me that objective morality exists. I can't imagine how it is.
  1. Does objective morality exist?

    12 votes
    1. Yes
      41.67%
    2. No
      41.67%
    3. I don't know
      16.67%
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 66 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 +



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.
    DrCerealEmeryPearson

    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.




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

    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.
    EmeryPearson
  • @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 66 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.
    EdrilEmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • I do not think that objective morality exists. A society should always strive to be pluralistic, which means inclusive to individuals of different ideals and beliefs. An individual in a society is entitled to his/her own subjective morality defined my their own terms. That is why a society is a combination of multiple subjective moralities, instead of being confined by one single objective morality.

    If morality becomes objective, morality will become suffocating. People will impose the objective morality on people who refuse to abide by it. There will be a new form of oppression and imposition that limits the plurality of individual subjectivities. 
    EmeryPearson
  • GooberryGooberry 404 Pts
    If morality was objective, duels, slavery, torture, sacking of a city for the spoils, rape, etc would never have been considered “ok” at one point in time.
    EmeryPearson
  • I would argue that there is no objective morality. Morality comes in many forms. The two main beliefs in morality are virtue theory, which focuses on how people feel to dictate the best possible morality, and utilitarianism, which focuses on what's best for society. Both can be argued for but are both in a way extreme. Virtue theory often lacks logic yet has empathy, while utilitarianism has logic but often lacks empathy. Society has put prejudices on certain things that may not apply to all. This may sound ridiculous at first but let's say I'm annoying you. You tell me to stop. Who dictates the other? If I continue to annoy you, I am dictating your feelings, while if you stop me, you are dictating my actions. Most people will say that I should stop, but what if my desire to continue annoying you exceeds your desire to stop me? Some may say that you should stop telling me to stop and I should stop annoying you, but who let's them dictate something that's none of their business? This question must be answered in order for society to continue because it can apply to a whole bunch of worse things like murder, rape, etc. There has to be subjective morality in order for people to progress. I could give you an example of contradictory ideologies in society. Society seems to lean towards virtue theory, yet has some elements are waay over at utilitarianism. For example, we already believe that it's wrong to kill, but we kill animals. Why? We evolved to help our own species progress and to not care about other species because it's a detriment to us. This is why racism was practiced for such a long time. The reason why we don't care about animals is because of a utilitarian ideology that says that killing animals is for the better of our society, yet this lacks empathy. I believe that we should combine logic and empathy, but it seems impossible. If you were to meet in the middle of the utilitarian - virtue theory spectrum you would have part logic and part empathy, and this is not what I would want. While in theory, there may be an objective morality, it's impossible to put it into reality.
    EmeryPearson
  • AugustineAugustine 2 Pts
    edited March 26
    To show that there is objective morality, do the following four things:

    (1) Select the behaviour you consider to be most morally repugnant: (i.e., rape, shooting school kids for fun, racist hate, subordinating women, etc...)

    (2) Say the following (where you fill in the blanks with what you chose in (1): _______ isn't really wrong, it is just my personal opinion that this is repugnant. While I wouldn't do _______, any one who does _______ isn't really doing anything wrong. In fact, those who do ______ and me, who values the opposite of ________, are moral equals. 

    (3) If you disagree with the statement in (2), you believe in objective moral values!

    (4) If you agree with the statement in (2), repeat steps (1) and (2) while really thinking about what you are endorsing, until you arrive at (3).
    EmeryPearson
  • No, morality is entirely contextual. There is no proof for for any universal standard historically or in the modern era.
  • Can we truly, ever say that objectivity is not subjective.

    Both are notional/conceptual. As are true morals.

    Enforced morals cease to be notional and become legislative and oppressive.
    EmeryPearson
  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    edited March 27
    Morality I argue is subjective , and just to be clear for morality to be objective would mean it is so independent of what you, I or anyone else thinks 

    Say we as humans tried to explain a murder to an alien being who understood our language and we said “ murder is wrong “ and he asked “what is wrongness as in what makes it wrong , what is this property “ wrongness “ ?

    If something is an objective moral fact it’s a fact independent of us so it’s “ out their “ how do we explain or detect this wrongness ?
    someone234
  • Dee said:
    Morality I argue is subjective , and just to be clear for morality to be objective would mean it is so independent of what you, I or anyone else thinks 

    Say we as humans tried to explain a murder to an alien being who understood our language and we said “ murder is wrong “ and he asked “what is wrongness as in what makes it wrong , what is this property “ wrongness “ ?

    If something is an objective moral fact it’s a fact independent of us so it’s “ out their “ how do we explain or detect this wrongness ?
    Aliens are superior to us in comprehending morality. They are beyond us both in IQ and political sophistication in fairness of their democracy. You are disrespecting their intelligence thinking they don't comprehend moral wrong.
    DeeEmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    @someone234

    You say ......Aliens are superior to us in comprehending morality. They are beyond us both in IQ and political sophistication in fairness of their democracy. You are disrespecting their intelligence thinking they don't comprehend moral wrong.


    Why don’t you actually debate instead of trolling ? Incidentally I reported and posted your vicious message earlier to my post 
  • someone234someone234 605 Pts
    edited March 27
    Dee said:
    @someone234

    You say ......Aliens are superior to us in comprehending morality. They are beyond us both in IQ and political sophistication in fairness of their democracy. You are disrespecting their intelligence thinking they don't comprehend moral wrong.


    Why don’t you actually debate instead of trolling ? Incidentally I reported and posted your vicious message earlier to my post 
    You can report all you want, I've been banned from sites before this is nothing new to me. I get banned here and there because small brains can't handle me and I don't back down to corrupt admins.

    What you will find in the long run is that reporting me doesn't make what I say any less true and when I return later on, the new generation is more than happy to welcome me even if they hate me because I debate with such insane skill and comprehension of both sides that they can't help but admire me.

    You should not criticise aliens who I doubt have even contacted you. They will not be so kind to you if they meet you in the afterlife (if there is one).

    Do you think angels and demons are Earthly? Don't amuse yourself. Whether you end in Nirvana or Hell, you will be punished if you bully the aliens. Know your place, you are a human like me and we are best at negotiation and EQ but we do not dominate them in IQ or 'understanding'.
    EmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    @someone234

    You can report all you want,

    I intend to 


     I've been banned from sites before this is nothing new to me.

    Yes , because you refuse to debate 

    I get banned here and there because small brains can't handle me

    you really mean mean they don’t put up with your constant attacks demonstrating who really has the small brain 


    and I don't back down to corrupt admins.

    you mean admins that don’t like you attacking others 


    I
    someone234
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| 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