Objective or Subjective - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate 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!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Objective or Subjective

Debate Information

By “objective” I mean “independent of personal opinions.”
By “subjective” I mean “dependent on personal opinions.”

Here is the question for atheists:
The Nazis who carried out the Holocaust were they objectively wrong?

Because they personally felt they were correct (subjective).
JGXdebatePRO
Debate Details +
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • @Sand
    Whatever the heck this topic has to do with religion is anybody's guess.

    I would say that it has a lot to do with the fact that the Nazis were sanctioned and indeed, financed by the Vatican to "solve the Jewish problem". The Catholics regarded Jews as the devil incarnate.
    Hitler mentioned in Mein Kampf and several of his speeches that God told him to invade Poland and take care of inferior races.
    Of course, we should mention that the Nazis melted down gold fillings of the hapless Jews to make Catholic ww2 medals. And the fat from Jewish bodies was rendered down to make soap for the Nazis so everybody could see and smell how clean they were.

    Then again, if we were to talk generically we could discuss the bigotry from racial and religious prejudices that were rife throughout the holocaust and still are by Christian Churches.
    Ohhhh I could go on a lot more but anyway, that's my objective view.
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    edited September 17
    All value judgements are subjective ......Thats that settled 


    Here is a question every believer on site has ran from , most notably @marke who still after 30 odd attempts can only babble on about gods love or quote a bible verse , can you fare any better?

    If your god is the source of all morality and the ultimate moral agent you have to accept he watched the Holocaust unfold and did nothing to prevent the deaths but watch , if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death 

    Do you accept it was a perfectly moral decision by your god just to watch? If so why?

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Dee

    I know I can't answer this question in an meaningful way, but I want to give an overly simplified approach -- one you may not like and have many objections to, but remember, I am admitting that it is a horribly reduced analogy. But just a thought:

    A doctor administers a shot to a baby. The baby cries and cries and screams and the doctor just watches. If the doctor is the source of all that is health-inducing in the baby, is it proper for the doctor to watch while the baby screams in pain?

    Faith, whether anyone likes it or not, includes trusting that there is a reason pain happens and that God watches as his plan unfolds, because he knows that whatever suffering is now, is part of a larger scheme that is ultimately necessary and for the good of mankind whether or not we, babies compared to what the doctor knows, see it.

    Again, just a thought.
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @rosends

    Thank you for at least having trying to provide an answer 


    A doctor administers a shot to a baby. The baby cries and cries and screams and the doctor just watches. If the doctor is the source of all that is health-inducing in the baby, is it proper for the doctor to watch while the baby screams in pain?

    For a start the child is presented to the doctor for treatment by caring parents who we can safely presume want an end to the child’s suffering all parties are there to alleviate the suffering of the child, the crying of the child is a normal reaction to pain that’s inflicted to achieve the child’s well being 

    The children who were gassed to death were not there by parental choice they were cruelly put there by being Jewish nothing else right? 



    Faith, whether anyone likes it or not, includes trusting that there is a reason pain happens and that God watches as his plan unfolds, 

    Tell me please in your own words what possible plan could be fulfilled by the horrendous suffering and pain of children being tortured so cruelly? 

    If you believe god to be all powerful , intelligent and loving do you not honestly think he could go about fulfilling his plan in a more humane way? How  does the dreadful  suffering of children make his plan more worthy?

    What is his plan?

    because he knows that whatever suffering is now, is part of a larger scheme that is ultimately necessary and for the good of mankind

    Why would it be necessary ? How is the appalling torture and cruelty inflicted on his subjects for the good of mankind?

    Have you ever seen a Jewish mother or father who survived not been totally broken by the loss of a child under such circumstances? 


     whether or not we, babies compared to what the doctor knows, see it.

    Again, just a thought.


    So you do accept it was a perfectly moral decision by your god just to watch? 

  • @rosends
    Faith, whether anyone likes it or not, includes trusting that there is a reason pain happens and that God watches as his plan unfolds, because he knows that whatever suffering is now, is part of a larger scheme that is ultimately necessary and for the good of mankind whether or not we, babies compared to what the doctor knows, see it.
    Again, just a thought.

    .....And an extremely bigoted, racist thought at that.
    So, God watched the holocaust unfold because he knew it was part of a larger scheme and ultimately necessary for the good of mankind, did He?
    Utterly disgusting.
  • @Sand ;
    When people ask this question they don't quite grasp the entire concept.

    When you ask: "Were the Nazi's right or wrong?" You don't specify from who's perspective we are asking.

    I can maintain both: "morality is subjective" and "The Nazis were wrong" because from my subjective perspective this is true.

    If someone wants to maintain that the Nazis were objectively wrong, they would have to prove that there is a rigorous method for determining that someone is morally right or wrong and that the Nazis meet the criteria for being wrong.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>>>I can maintain both: "morality is subjective" and "The Nazis were wrong" because from my subjective perspective this is true.<<<<
    Great point.
    Nevertheless, from their subjective viewpoint, they were morally correct in doing the things that they did, but it disagreed with the objective moral values.
    Your subjective perspective is true because it agrees with the objective moral values.

    So one thing you cannot say is objectively they were correct.
    Besides the fact that they were religious, racist, or political, it was clear that there were objective morals violated.
    Do you agree?
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    If an arsonist is clearly seen setting a building on fire.
    The people who do not react to stopping the arsonist, should they be held morally accountable for causing the fire?

    The people who die from starvation should we hold everyone with money and food morally accountable for causing them to die?
    JGXdebatePRO
  • @Sand

    Er, yes the nazis' beliefs are wrong, they killed millions of jews.
    Are you seriously saying you have sympathy for their position?
    “I’d be lying if I said things are going according to my plan… but beggars can’t be choosers, right?” – Madara Uchiha
  • @Sand ;
    Great point.
    Nevertheless, from their subjective viewpoint, they were morally correct in doing the things that they did, but it disagreed with the objective moral values.
    Your subjective perspective is true because it agrees with the objective moral values.

    So one thing you cannot say is objectively they were correct.
    Besides the fact that they were religious, racist, or political, it was clear that there were objective morals violated.
    Do you agree?
    It would be obvious to state that I can't say the Nazis or anyone is objectively correct because that isn't my stance.

    To say that the Nazi's thought they were right is apparent, but since I don't think objective morals exist the short answer is no.

    Can you prove then that there are in fact objective morals and that the Nazis were in fact objectively wrong? Suppose the Nazis were objectively right. How would you know this is not the case?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    edited September 14

    Do you feel that all the nations that fought against the Nazis' subjective viewpoint, all viewed what the Nazis did incorrect subjectively?
    Or would you say that the majority of people felt subjectively what the Nazis' did was incorrect?
  • @Sand ;
    Do you feel that all the nations that fought against the Nazis' subjective viewpoint, all viewed what the Nazis did incorrect subjectively?
    Yes, that's my point exactly. The Nazis thought they were right, everyone else thought them wrong, they paid the price.
    Or would you say that the majority of people felt subjectively what the Nazis' did was incorrect?
    Also yes for effectively the same reason.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    You claimed my statement was a fallacy as in ..... All value judgements are subjective

    Instead of just clicking fallacy why not explain why you did so as it’s a pretty cowardly way to go about things , I think it’s because you have no rebuttal right? 

    I also note you could not reply to my broader question regards god’s morality,  on this you’re excused as no Christian can address it without embracing absurdities 
    Sand
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    What basis did the majority of the people use to determine the Nazis were wrong?
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    >>>if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death.<<<

    The people who die from starvation should we hold everyone with money and food morally accountable for causing them to die?

    Dee
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    What basis do you use to determine what they were doing was wrong?
  • @Sand ;
    What basis did the majority of the people use to determine the Nazis were wrong?
    I would say it's a feeling of respect and empathy for one's fellow man.

    How do you know the Nazis were wrong objectively?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    Hold up first you need to address the fact you claimed my statement was a fallacy ,  why was it a fallacy or are you going to do the cowardly thing again and refuse to say why ?  ..... All value judgements are subjective


  • SandSand 234 Pts
    I was addressing this statement as a fallacy:
    >>>if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death.<<<

  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    I was addressing this statement as a fallacy:
    >>>if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death.<<<


    Thank you for clarifying, ok why is that statement a fallacy?

  • SandSand 234 Pts
    I learned God's standards for one's fellow man.

    If it is feelings then they really were not wrong, you just felt they were wrong, correct?
    If yes, then do you feel it is ok for the majority to impose their feelings on others if they disagree with their feelings?

  • SandSand 234 Pts

    There is a difference between causing and allowing.
    If I do not give everyone food who needs it I am not morally accountable if they die of starvation.
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    There is a difference between causing and allowing.

    Yes I know how’s does that answer what you claim is a fallacy ?

    Here is what I asked .... if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death.

    So tell me how is that statement fallacious?
    Sand
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    God did not cause the men, women, and children to be gassed to death.
    God is not morally accountable for not saving them.
    Just as we are not morally accountable for not saving everyone from starvation.
    I thought you were insinuating that God was morally accountable, but you were just asking the question.
    I appologize.
  • @Sand ;
    I learned God's standards for one's fellow man.

    If it is feelings then they really were not wrong, you just felt they were wrong, correct?
    If yes, then do you feel it is ok for the majority to impose their feelings on others if they disagree with their feelings?
    There are thousands of different gods, and even more interpretations of the teachings of those gods. How can you say that god makes morality objective when there are so many? How do you know which is the correct one in order for this to prove that morality is objective?

    As far as how I "feel" I have already stated that I think they were morally wrong, but my rational for this is not just a "feeling" although it is subjective.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Dee


    “The children who were gassed to death were not there by parental choice they were cruelly put there by being Jewish nothing else right? “

    Totally correct, yes.


    “Tell me please in your own words what possible plan could be fulfilled by the horrendous suffering and pain of children being tortured so cruelly? “

     

    I haven’t the slightest idea. Faith means accepting that there IS some larger plan that is beyond me. That doesn’t satisfy many people.

     

    “What is his plan?”

     

    If I knew that, I’d be God. I’m just some guy in New Jersey.

     

    “Why would it be necessary ? How is the appalling torture and cruelty inflicted on his subjects for the good of mankind?”

     

    Does the baby understand why his pain and suffering after a shot is necessary? Do most parents? I’d guess not.

    “Have you ever seen a Jewish mother or father who survived not been totally broken by the loss of a child under such circumstances? “

     

    Not personally, but I have heard of MANY. I would suggest (if you have a couple of hours to kill) watching “The Quarrel”, an incredible movie which asks similar questions and shows how 2 people can come up with opposite answers.

    “So you do accept it was a perfectly moral decision by your god just to watch? “

    Who says he was just watching?

     


  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>>There are thousands of different gods, and even more interpretations of the teachings of those gods. How can you say that God makes morality objective when there are so many? How do you know which is the correct one in order for this to prove that morality is objective?<<<
    There are correlations to all the information.
    All the stories after you hone it down, reference to the God that caused all the other gods.
    Just like there are many theories, one could reason they are conflicting thoughts.
    But if you overlap them and correlate the information they are pointing to a centralized conclusion.

    >>>As far as how I "feel" I have already stated that I think they were morally wrong, but my rationale for this is not just a "feeling" although it is subjective. <<<
    I have a lot of feelings about others being wrong.
    I mean I just thought Dee was wrong, but it turned out I was wrong.


    Because the minority was forced to adhere to the majority only because they thought differently.

    Certain races, LGBT, democratic rulership they are minority groups compared to the world population.
    Yet there is a strong subjective viewpoint to support these groups regardless of others' feelings.
    People who agree with slavery, genocide, misogyny are minority groups compared to the world population.
    And there is a strong subjective viewpoint to fight against these groups regardless of others' feelings.
    Would you not say this is the definition of objective, or would you say that people are being hypocritical for imposing their opinions on others?

  • @Sand ;
    There are correlations to all the information.
    All the stories after you hone it down, reference to the God that caused all the other gods.
    Just like there are many theories, one could reason they are conflicting thoughts.
    But if you overlap them and correlate the information they are pointing to a centralized conclusion.
    Won't the Muslims tell me exactly the same thing? How do you know they are wrong?
    Certain races, LGBT, democratic rulership they are minority groups compared to the world population.
    Yet there is a strong subjective viewpoint to support these groups regardless of others' feelings.
    People who agree with slavery, genocide, misogyny are minority groups compared to the world population.
    And there is a strong subjective viewpoint to fight against these groups regardless of others' feelings.
    Would you not say this is the definition of objective, or would you say that people are being hypocritical for imposing their opinions on others?
    A democracy does not an objective morals make. It simply correlates, clusters, and perhaps aggregates collective subjective opinions. If morality is objective, then by definition it doesn't matter what people think so how they vote changes nothing.

    Do you have any other proof that morals are objective?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    >>>Won't the Muslims tell me exactly the same thing? How do you know they are wrong?<<<
    Muslims already reference one main God.
    All the stories after you hone it down, reference to the God that caused all the other gods.


    >>>A democracy does not an objective morals make. It simply correlates, clusters, and perhaps aggregates collective subjective opinions. If morality is objective, then by definition it doesn't matter what people think so how they vote changes nothing.<<<

    Yes, but let's stick with this line of reasoning.

    Democracy is a small group, that you support.
    LGBT is a small group that you support.
    Supporters of slavery you morally disagree with.
    Supporters of genocide you morally disagree with.
    Supporters of misogyny you morally disagree with.



    I propose that subjective thinking is a delusion of choice.
    Subjective moral thinking seems to always choose what people claim to be Objective moral thought.
    What do you think of this theory?

    Would you say there exists an objective reality?
    If so how would you prove that? (I think that would answer your question on objective morality.)
  • @Sand ;
    Muslims already reference one main God.
    All the stories after you hone it down, reference to the God that caused all the other gods.
    But that god has a different set of objective morals than the Christian god. If we say morals are objective and based on god, we need to prove which one, otherwise we don't know which group of ideas if any is correct.
    I propose that subjective thinking is a delusion of choice.
    Subjective moral thinking seems to always choose what people claim to be Objective moral thought.
    What do you think of this theory?
    I think that theory is kind of ironic.

    For example, Christians, Hindus, and Muslims all claim their god is the source of objective morality, yet at the end of the day, no more than one (all could be wrong still) could be right.

    This is the point I'm trying to make about the Christian vs Muslim god as a source of morals.
    Would you say there exists an objective reality?
    If so how would you prove that? (I think that would answer your question on objective morality.)
    Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.

    In other words, the simple fact that I am a being with an experience at all means that there must be something rather than nothing, because if there were nothing then I would have no such experience.

    Since we know that there is something, we can not move on to figure out what something. If there are many somethings, they would still be part of one combined hyper reality, so no matter what there can never be more than one something even if it has many parts. (any set of things can be defined based on a count of the groups) 

    This means that there must be a single objective reality. This however doesn't guarantee morals are a base component of that reality. In order to do that, you would need to further prove that this is the case, which you have yet to do. Demonstrating subjective morals is as simple as observing that different people at different times have had different moral values, laws, and customs.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    edited September 15
    >>>But that god has a different set of objective morals than the Christian god. If we say morals are objective and based on god, we need to prove which one, otherwise we don't know which group of ideas if any is correct.<<<

    Objective morals denote a point of reference.
    Not all Muslims feel the same as the Muslims in Muslim ruled countries.



    There is your answer:
    The simple fact that you are a being with moral experiences at all means that there must be something objective rather than nothing objective, because if there was nothing objective then you would have no such experience.

    If reality was subjective then nothing would be actually true, it would all be opinions.
    We conclude there is an objective reality because of our experiences.
    If you notice people have different conclusions on their worldview of reality, but it doesn't make objective reality subjective reality.
    So the same with morals.
    If morals were completely subjective then nothing would be right or wrong, it would all be opinions.
    We should conclude that there are objective morals because of our moral experiences. 
    As you have mentioned religious people have different conclusions on their worldview of morals, but it doesn't make objective morals subjective morals.



    >>>This however doesn't guarantee morals are a base component of that reality. <<<
    True.
    But for everyone to universally choose the same laws, morals, and customs sympatico is proof of objective morals.
    These three are worldwide automatically accepted as wrong, assault, murder, and theft.
    Love of family, helping others, reciprocation of favors, bravery, adherence to authority, fairness, respect are also worldwide accepted.
    The fact that a person isolated from everyone and everything subjectively chooses these same 10 morals.

    Is proof that there are objective morals, and the fact that laws, morals, and customs vary is proof there are subjective morals also.


    >>>further prove that this is the case, which you have yet to do<<<
    Here is the proof I offer for objective morals:

    Moral debate assumes moral disagreement.
    If all morals were subjective then there would be no genuine moral disagreement.
    It is like someone says that I hate red shirts and another person says they hate blue shirts.
    They would not have a serious debate about red vs blue, because really they are only preferences.

    If all morals were subjective it would render all of our moral judgments literally infallible true.
    Unless, you think it is not extremely presumptuous to think that a person's beliefs about an entire area of discourse are literally infallibly true especially about one that is so nuanced and controversial as morality.
    Then that would mean that every religious viewpoint that ever existed is infallibly correct.

    If all morals were subjective then there would be true contradictions.
    Everyone who ever existed would have perfect rationale.
    Moral claims are true or false descriptions of our preferences.
    As long as the description is accurate then the moral claim is true
    Our preferences are not always rational.

    Suppose I hold a preference that it's morally wrong to eat meat
    And I held the preference that it's morally wrong to starve to death

    So I could never approve of eating meat and I sometimes approve of eating meat.
    Moral claim - It is always wrong to eat meat, and it is not always wrong to eat meat.
    And I would be right!

    Conclusion - there are objective morals.
    Monketrunk
  • @Sand ;
    The simple fact that you are a being with moral experiences at all means that there must be something objective rather than nothing objective, because if there was nothing objective then you would have no such experience.
    That doesn't follow. Suppose someone is having an acid trip and see things that don't or can't exist (like fireworks trees) Does that mean these things do exist?
    If reality was subjective then nothing would be actually true, it would all be opinions.
    We conclude there is an objective reality because of our experiences.
    If you notice people have different conclusions on their worldview of reality, but it doesn't make objective reality subjective reality.
    So the same with morals.
    If morals were completely subjective then nothing would be right or wrong, it would all be opinions.
    We should conclude that there are objective morals because of our moral experiences. 
    As you have mentioned religious people have different conclusions on their worldview of morals, but it doesn't make objective morals subjective morals.
    Reality doesn't have to be subjective for there to be subjective morals. 

    Consider that an objective reality could have beings who each have subjective experiences (this reality)

    This does nothing to disprove subjective morals, or to prove objective ones.
    True.
    But for everyone to universally choose the same laws, morals, and customs sympatico is proof of objective morals.
    These three are worldwide automatically accepted as wrong, assault, murder, and theft.
    Love of family, helping others, reciprocation of favors, bravery, adherence to authority, fairness, respect are also worldwide accepted.
    The fact that a person isolated from everyone and everything subjectively chooses these same 10 morals.

    Is proof that there are objective morals, and the fact that laws, morals, and customs vary is proof there are subjective morals also.
    We did not come to exactly the same conclusions though. For example, the Hebrews didn't Eat pork, where clothing made of different materials, or work on Sundays.

    Furthermore, our natural moral inclinations you described can be 100% accounted for by the theory of evolution (Not interested in discussing this here. Suffice to say that it has been done)
    Moral debate assumes moral disagreement.
    If all morals were subjective then there would be no genuine moral disagreement.
    It is like someone says that I hate red shirts and another person says they hate blue shirts.
    They would not have a serious debate about red vs blue, because really they are only preferences.
    No, that makes no sense. If I say "red is the best" and you say "no blue is best red is worst" we do have a disagreement that can't be solved, almost like many of the moral disagreements we have regularly such as those around slavery or women's rights.

    This is exactly what we would expect to see if morals were subjective. If they were objective, like say, the earth being round (an objective fact) there can't really be a critical debate because all the evidence supports it.
    If all morals were subjective it would render all of our moral judgments literally infallible true.
    Unless, you think it is not extremely presumptuous to think that a person's beliefs about an entire area of discourse are literally infallibly true especially about one that is so nuanced and controversial as morality.
    Then that would mean that every religious viewpoint that ever existed is infallibly correct.
    Again, this is exactly opposite. Subjective =/= right. I think that you don't understand that.
    If all morals were subjective then there would be true contradictions.
    Everyone who ever existed would have perfect rationale.
    Moral claims are true or false descriptions of our preferences.
    As long as the description is accurate then the
    This is the same misconception as the above two items. Just because I think that something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is absolutely right or wrong, so the contradictions go away with this assumption.

    Consider:

    Bob says eating meat is wrong

    Jill says eating meat is right

    If morals are objective, one is true the other false. If they are subjective, then X is wrong to Bob and right to Jill and vice versa, so it only counts from the individual's perspective, and there is no absolute truth to either claim. They are neither true nor false.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    Fascinating

    >>>>That doesn't follow. Suppose someone is having an acid trip and see things that don't or can't exist (like fireworks trees) Does that mean these things do exist?<<<<
    Are you referring to reality or morals?



    >>>>Reality doesn't have to be subjective for there to be subjective morals. 
    Consider that an objective reality could have beings who each have subjective experiences (this reality)
    This does nothing to disprove subjective morals, or to prove objective ones.<<<<
    Then I would conclude your evidence for objective reality to be false.



    >>>>We did not come to exactly the same conclusions though. For example, the Hebrews didn't Eat pork, where clothing made of different materials, or work on Sundays.
    Furthermore, our natural moral inclinations you described can be 100% accounted for by the theory of evolution (Not interested in discussing this here. Suffice to say that it has been done)<<<<
    Not on everything.
    If we were evolutionary based then the majority killing the minority is part of the evolutionary process.
    Your ultimate goal will be to eliminate every person who disagrees with your subjective viewpoints.
    Survival of the fittest.
    The fact you do not hold that stand denotes objective.



    >>>>No, that makes no sense. If I say "red is the best" and you say "no blue is best red is worst" we do have a disagreement that can't be solved, almost like many of the moral disagreements we have regularly such as those around slavery or women's rights.<<<<
    Are you on a board debating colors or flavors?
    Is there anybody debating colors or flavors?
    Who would be considered wrong or right? It would be only opinions.
    But you already denoted that the majority chose a color and was willing to kill for it.
    That is too strong of feeling for subjective personal opinion.


    >>>>This is exactly what we would expect to see if morals were subjective. If they were objective, like say, the earth being round (an objective fact) there can't really be a critical debate because all the evidence supports it.<<<<
    That is my point exactly, I am not saying there are no subjective morals. I am saying there are morals people always agree upon as wrong, assault, murder, and theft.
    Agree upon as right, the love of family, helping others, reciprocation of favors, bravery, adherence to authority, fairness, and respect.

    Let me explain it differently:

    If there are no objective morals.
    I subjectively hold that there are objective morals, would I be wrong?
    subjectively ≠ wrong
    subjectively ≠ right
    The answer would be no.

    If there were objective morals.
    I subjectively hold that there are not objective morals, would I be wrong?
    The answer would be yes.

    >>>>Again, this is exactly opposite. Subjective =/= right. I think that you don't understand that.<<<<
    subjectively ≠ wrong
    subjectively ≠ right
    Let me ask this question if a killer holds that subjectively killing is not wrong?



    >>>>If morals are objective, one is true the other false. If they are subjective, then X is wrong to Bob and right to Jill and vice versa, so it only counts from the individual's perspective, and there is no absolute truth to either claim. They are neither true nor false.<<<<

    You are making my point again. Neither true nor false, so someone can claim true contradictory terms.
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    God did not cause the men, women, and children to be gassed to death.

    Yes I never claimed he did 

    God is not morally accountable for not saving them.

    Yes I never claimed he was 

    Just as we are not morally accountable for not saving everyone from starvation.

    Yes 

    I thought you were insinuating that God was morally accountable, but you were just asking the question.
    I appologize.

    No I wasn’t , that’s fine thank you but can you answer my question?

     if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death.

    Can you offer an answer please?
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    Because the minority was forced to adhere to the majority only because they thought differently.

    What you’re trying to say is unclear to me 


    Certain races, LGBT, democratic rulership they are minority groups compared to the world population.
    Yet there is a strong subjective viewpoint to support these groups regardless of others' feelings.

    Thats because we are humans and morality is an ever evolving concept that differs from society to society and is informed by such 


    People who agree with slavery, genocide, misogyny are minority groups compared to the world population.

    Yes 

    And there is a strong subjective viewpoint to fight against these groups regardless of others' feelings.

    Yes 


    Would you not say this is the definition of objective,

    No , and you gave a definition of objective which you’re now moving away from 

     or would you say that people are being hypocritical for imposing their opinions on others?

    I make no such judgements, when you say something is morally wrong all your doing is expressing your disapproval of such 

  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    edited September 15
    @rosends

    I haven’t the slightest idea. Faith means accepting that there IS some larger plan that is beyond me. That doesn’t satisfy many people.

    Why would you take anything on faith? Do you think it a good method to find truth?

     

     If I knew that, I’d be God. I’m just some guy in New Jersey.

    Fair enough 

     

    Does the baby understand why his pain and suffering after a shot is necessary? Do most parents? I’d guess not.

    Babies do not understand much about anything . Adults do and realise  why the pain was necessary 

    You seriously believe parents don’t know why the pain of the shot was necessary ?


     Not personally, but I have heard of MANY. I would suggest (if you have a couple of hours to kill) watching “The Quarrel”, an incredible movie which asks similar questions and shows how 2 people can come up with opposite answers.

    But how is that relevant you’ve admitted you haven’t the slightest idea regards gods plan


    Who says he was just watching?


    Well I do for a start , do you reach a different conclusion and if so on what basis? 

    If he was not just watching and we presume he was doing something else rather than watching what difference did it make to the victims?

    Also you said you hadn’t a clue regards gods plan so now it seems you have if you’re implying he may have been more than watching right?

    With respect you still have not answered the main question I asked 

     


  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    . I am saying there are morals people always agree upon as wrong, assault, murder, and theft.

    Thats incorrect , I can pick each of your contentions apart 


    Agree upon as right, the love of family,

    I disagee , I know a guy who’s father was a brutal drunk and his mother a whore and he detests them his sister and brother he detests also is he ‘wrong’?

     helping others,

    I disagree , why should I help others?

     reciprocation of favors

    Why is there a debt to be paid if one does you a favour?

    bravery, 

    What’s so great about bravery ? It can cost you your life? 


    adherence to authority, 

    Why? 

    fairness,

    Fairness to who?

     and respect.

    Respect for who or what?
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    edited September 15
    @Sand


    A subjective morality is based on human feelings and desires you seem to think this is arbitrary our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature, being a product of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary.

    We decide morality by a broad societal consensus which does not mean everyone’s opinion is just as valid otherwise we would not condemn the child killers in our societies yet we do as we are human and have worked out these things through our ever evolving moral systems 

    We do not need to appeal to a so called objective morality to figure these  things out most humans agree on the basics of moral codes 

    Can you give examples of Objective moral facts ?

    What is your source for such?



  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>> if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death.
    Can you offer an answer please?<<<

    Yes it is just. Everyone does it.
    Riot police do it on the news all the time, but most people don't get up from their homes and try to stop police officers. Causing and Allowing are two different things.
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>>No, and you gave a definition of objective which you’re now moving away from<<<
    Please explain how?

    >>>>I disagree, I know a guy who’s father was a brutal drunk and his mother a whore and he detests them his sister and brother he detests also is he ‘wrong’?<<<<
    But does he disagree with other people loving their families?
    Does he personally feel that no one should love their family?
    If he was part of a jury would he object to someone doing something out of love of family?
    Sounds like he just doesn't love his own immediate family for who they are.

    >>>I disagree, why should I help others?<<<
    But do you argue with other people helping others?
    Do you personally feel that no one would honestly help anyone else?
    If you were part of a jury would you object to someone trying to help someone else?

    >>>Why is there a debt to be paid if one does you a favor?<<<
    So do you personly feel everything is a transactional act with you?
    If your wife kisses you, you are telling me you will not kiss her back?
    If a family member hugs you, you will not raise your arms to hug back?
    But do you disagree with others who return kisses or hugs?
    Do you personally feel that no one should reciprocate anything?
    If you were part of a jury would you object to someone trying to reciprocate?


    >>>>What’s so great about bravery? It can cost you your life?<<<<
    So you take no risks in anything you do?
    You must never applied for a job, or drive a vehicle?
    Or ever played as a child?
    But do you disagree with others who are brave?
    Do you personally feel that no one should be brave for anything?
    If you were part of a jury would you object to someone trying to be brave?

    >>>Why?<<<
    So you do not adhere to authority?
    Do you steal and kill on a regular basis?
    But do you disagree with others who adhere to authority?
    Do you personally feel that no one should adhere to authority for anything?
    If you were part of a jury would you rebel against the judge and security?

    >>>Fairness to who?<<<
    So you do not hold it is important to be fair?
    Do you always try to place yourself at a disadvantage?
    I am not sure you can have a stand against bravery and fairness.
    But do you disagree with others who advocate for fairness?
    Do you personally feel that no one should seek fairness for anything?
    If you were part of a jury would you object to someone requesting fairness during a trial?

    >>>Respect for who or what?<<<
    You are telling me you do not want respect?
    Are you saying that you want people not to listen to your statements?
    That you would much rather people disrespect you in your life?
    Do you disagree with others who request respect?
    Do you personally feel that no one should seek respect for anything?
    If you were part of a jury would you disrespect the judge and other members of a trial?

    I do not believe that you truly hold such viewpoints.

  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death.


    Yes it is just. Everyone does it.

    So you agree it’s perfectly just and moral for your god to watch. Everyone doesn’t do it , which is why we had a war to defeat the Germans.

    Are you honestly saying you would just watch if you could take action?


    Riot police do it on the news all the time,

    Do what not intervene? 

    but most people don't get up from their homes and try to stop police officers

    What are you talking about 

    . Causing and Allowing are two different things.

    Yes we all know this what’s your point? You’ve just admitted it’s perfectly moral and just for your god to watch men , women and children being gassed to death or do you wish to change your mind?
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    edited September 15
    @Sand

    . I am saying there are morals people always agree upon as wrong, assault, murder, and theft.
    Agree upon as right, the love of family, helping others, reciprocation of favors, bravery, adherence to authority, fairness, and respect.

    Asking me 42 questions is hardly helpful is it ? 

    Here it is in a nutshell .... there are morals people always agree upon as wrong


    This is your statement where you make a case for objective morality ,you have failed to prove the existence of such.

    List off please things that are objective moral facts?
    Sand
  • @Dee

    Why would you take anything on faith? Do you think it a good method to find truth?

     I take plenty of things on faith. I guess your question is "why would you cede and confer authority to a figure you cannot see (as opposed to a weatherman who tells me to wear a coat so I believe him even though weathermen are often wrong)" I see many kinds of truth, and some larger ones are inaccessible to me so I pick and choose where I bestow authority based on faith.

    Babies do not understand much about anything . Adults do and realise  why the pain was necessary 

    You seriously believe parents don’t know why the pain of the shot was necessary ?

    When I compare us to God I see us as babies in our understanding compared to God. And most parents trust the doctor who says that the shot is needed and the pain is necessary and the baby will get past it. Very few parents know the mechanism of the shot and rely on the doctor's expertise.

    But how is that relevant you’ve admitted you haven’t the slightest idea regards gods plan

    because that's what it is about. Not knowing and how people respond to that.

    Well I do for a start , do you reach a different conclusion and if so on what basis? 

    Faith points me to a different conclusion. If God was just watching (people like Mark Twain have intimated) things would not have developed the way they have, historically.

    If he was not just watching and we presume he was doing something else rather than watching what difference did it make to the victims?

    To most, probably none. To a few, a lot.

    Also you said you hadn’t a clue regards gods plan so now it seems you have if you’re implying he may have been more than watching right?

    Having faith that there is a plan is one statement. Having faith that God was not "just watching" is another statement. Having faith that "not just watching" is part of an unknown plan is a third statement. Yes, I am willing to say all three.


  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>>We decide morality by a broad societal consensus which does not mean everyone’s opinion is just as valid otherwise we would not condemn the child killers in our societies yet we do as we are human and have worked out these things through our ever evolving moral systems<<<
    That is the definition of objective morality.
    A majority group has agreed on certain decisions of morality and create and enforce laws “independent of personal opinions.”
    If morality was truly subjective there would be no societal consensus.
    You do not see a societal consensus with animals taking out other animal cub killers.
    Because of animals, it is truly subjective.
    If you truly did nothing wrong, in killing a child, it was just subjective, there would be no moral outrage about anything.



    >>>We do not need to appeal to a so called objective morality to figure these  things out most humans agree on the basics of moral codes <<<
    These basic moral codes are the objective morality.
    Regardless of where they get it from.


    >>>Can you give examples of Objective moral facts?<<<
    In the BLM movement, there is moral outrage against law enforcement killing unarmed Black citizens.
    If the morals violated truly were subjective people would care less.

    There are morals that we all agree upon, whether you are isolated or with a group.
    Always considered wrong is assault, murder, and theft.
    This is worldwide even in communist countries.
    Plus judgments are executed independent of personal opinions.


    >>>What is your source for such?<<<
    My source is human behavior.
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    edited September 15
    D
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>>Yes we all know this what’s your point? You’ve just admitted it’s perfectly moral and just for your god to watch men, women, and children being gassed to death or do you wish to change your mind?<<<
    Yes, it is just.
  • @Sand ;
    Then I would conclude your evidence for objective reality to be false.
    Then there can not be objective morals.
    Not on everything.
    If we were evolutionary based then the majority killing the minority is part of the evolutionary process.
    Your ultimate goal will be to eliminate every person who disagrees with your subjective viewpoints.
    Survival of the fittest.
    The fact you do not hold that stand denotes objective.
    Not necessarily. Sometimes genes can evolve to protect themselves and others like them. Think about ants or bees, the drones and workers never reproduce and just live to aid the queen. They have evolved to be social because a social group is more fit than an individual.
    That is my point exactly, I am not saying there are no subjective morals. I am saying there are morals people always agree upon as wrong, assault, murder, and theft.
    Agree upon as right, the love of family, helping others, reciprocation of favors, bravery, adherence to authority, fairness, and respect.
    Let me explain it differently:If there are no objective morals.I subjectively hold that there are objective morals, would I be wrong?subjectively ≠ wrongsubjectively ≠ rightThe answer would be no.If there were objective morals.I subjectively hold that there are not objective morals, would I be wrong?The answer would be yes.
    People don't agree on those things, because people commit crimes. This is a serious flaw in your argument.
    Let me ask this question if a killer holds that subjectively killing is not wrong?
    Then from their perspective, killing is right, This is just the identity. That doesn't mean from my or your perspective that killing is right, that is what subjective means.
    You are making my point again. Neither true nor false, so someone can claim true contradictory terms.
    You missed the point again.

    The point is that if morals are objective, then they can be proven so. You can not prove that any given thing is right or wrong, therefore morals are not objective. Simple proof by contradiction.
    Monketrunk
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    That is the definition of objective morality.

    It’s in order for objective morality to exist, there would need to be an externally sourced set of right and wrong behaviours that would be objectively true for everyone.

    A majority group has agreed on certain decisions of morality and create and enforce laws “independent of personal opinions.” 

    How are they coming about them “independent of personal opinion “ do you know what common consensus means?

    Also you totally ignored what I stated earlier ..We decide morality by a broad societal consensus which does not mean everyone’s opinion is just as valid otherwise we would not condemn the child killers in our societies yet we do as we are human and have worked out these things through our ever evolving moral systems 


    If morality was truly subjective there would be no societal consensus.

    Of course their would which is why there  is , tell me this in Saudi Arabia executions , floggings and amputation take place every Friday they claim through the divine word of the Quran do you agree this is objective morality?



    You do not see a societal consensus with animals taking out other animal cub killers.

    What has this got to do with anything? I’m afraid for you again Science is against you as animals have a moral compass 



    Because of animals, it is truly subjective.

    What ?



    If you truly did nothing wrong, in killing a child, it was just subjective, there would be no moral outrage about anything.

    So tell me a fellow human would not be outraged at his child being murdered if he claimed his morality was subjective ? That’s what you’re saying right?



    These basic moral codes are the objective morality.

    And they differ in every society so explain again how they’re  objective?


    Regardless of where they get it from.

    So Sharia law is objective morality and so is the Christian version that’s what you’re saying right?



    In the BLM movement, there is moral outrage against law enforcement killing unarmed Black citizens.
    If the morals violated truly were subjective people would care less.

    I cannot even comprehend this I actually think you don’t know what the terms mean 

    There are morals that we all agree upon, whether you are isolated or with a group.

    No , not we all ....point out one?


    Always considered wrong is assault, murder, and theft.

    Nonsense , I would assault someone in certain circumstances, I would murder someone in circumstances and I would rob someone in certain circumstances 

    worldwide even in communist countries.

    Nonsense 


    Plus judgments are executed independent of personal opinions.

    What are you talking about?


    My source is human behavior.

    So not god ? So a couple of billion Muslims are right believing that apostates deserve to be punished right? 






  • DeeDee 2590 Pts
    @Sand

    Yes we all know this what’s your point? 

    Yes, it is just.


    Yes you agree that it perfectly moral to watch Jews being gassed to death and it’s perfectly just ......thankfully I’m not a Christian 
  • SandSand 234 Pts
    >>>>Yes you agree that it perfectly moral to watch Jews being gassed to death and it’s perfectly just ......thankfully I’m not a Christian <<<<
    Did you anything about the riots in Chicago?
    What about the riots in Los Angeles?
    Did you do anything for the riots in Minneapolis?

    Or did you let the police handle it?
    Are you morally responsible for allowing those riots to occur?
    It's not just religious people, everyone does it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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