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 largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Is morality objective or subjective?

Debate Information

I wanted anyone to know what you think about this.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • theinfectedmastertheinfectedmaster 65 Pts   -   edited January 16
    @theinfectedmaster I think morality is entirely subjective. Morality varies from one person to another. One person could think it's okay to murder people whereas another person could think it's not okay to murder people. Even pyscopaths have their own moral code. There are even some stuff I don't think should be considered immoral that are considered immoral. I prefer to keep those beliefs to my self. A norm is just what the vast majority of people think is acceptable. Someone could think something is acceptable that the vast majority of people don't. I prefer to not be the vast majority of people. I just keep the opinions to myself though. I used to be extremely extroverted about them, but then I decided that it's best to keep them to yourself.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 16
    Argument Topic: Even animals know when they are being treated unfairly

    We all appeal to a moral code beyond ourselves whether we admit it or not.  Especially when we feel we are the victim.. We may rationalize that someone else has a different standard, or that groups have different values, but when we are personally wronged we appeal to a moral code beyond individuals or the group we are in. 

    People will tell you that slavery is wrong, even if the society that the person is a slave in, says it is legal.  We recognize that what an individual or group says is right is not authoritative and we appeal to some standard beyond them.  When the Nazis killed Jews, they did so in a system that said it was OK to do so. However, people appealed to a law greater than that one to condemn what they were doing.  Last week Democrat politicians refused to support a bill to provide a newborn who had just survived an abortion access to immediate medical help and to be able to go to a hospital for live saving care.  While these politicians have blinded themselves to how wrong that is, most people believe it is wrong to kill a newborn child or to intentionally deny live saving medical help to her.

    In studies with dogs and monkeys, when an animal is given a treat, it will compare what it is given to what others are given.  If it is given something less valuable than the others it will respond negatively.  It intuitively understands that it has been treated unfairly.
    theinfectedmasterOakTownA
  • @just_sayin Even pyscopaths and sociopaths have a moral code. Just one that doesn't confirm to most people's moral codes.
  • @just_sayin Some people could think slavery is okay though. In fact, I was reading that 20% of Trump's supporters support slavery.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @theinfectedmaster
    In fact, I was reading that 20% of Trump's supporters support slavery.

    Only 20 percent? That's lower than I would have expected.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    We all appeal to a moral code beyond ourselves whether we admit it or not.  Especially when we feel we are the victim.. We may rationalize that someone else has a different standard, or that groups have different values, but when we are personally wronged we appeal to a moral code beyond individuals or the group we are in. 

    People will tell you that slavery is wrong, even if the society that the person is a slave in, says it is legal.  We recognize that what an individual or group says is right is not authoritative and we appeal to some standard beyond them.  When the Nazis killed Jews, they did so in a system that said it was OK to do so. However, people appealed to a law greater than that one to condemn what they were doing.  Last week Democrat politicians refused to support a bill to provide a newborn who had just survived an abortion access to immediate medical help and to be able to go to a hospital for live saving care.  While these politicians have blinded themselves to how wrong that is, most people believe it is wrong to kill a newborn child or to intentionally deny live saving medical help to her.

    In studies with dogs and monkeys, when an animal is given a treat, it will compare what it is given to what others are given.  If it is given something less valuable than the others it will respond negatively.  It intuitively understands that it has been treated unfairly.
    Yet for the vast majority of human history slavery was not seen as being evil in any way. Up until the last couple of centuries slavery was commonplace around the world, as well as kings and queens that were seen as fundamentally superior to the common folks. If the standard is something beyond an individual or a group in this respect, then it makes sense to conclude that the moral standard is that slavery is not wrong, and we have moved away from our moral roots.

    Slavery is not wrong "just because": slavery is wrong as a consequence of recognition of intrinsic human autonomy. It is not some ethereal moral concept humans somehow intuitively "feel" is right, but a consequence of centuries of intellectual inquiry, debates and experiments. And it is exactly the society that think and learn from history and their own experiences, as opposed to appealing to some "beyond", that ultimately succeed. You have South Korea that has embraced freedom and progress, and you have North Korea that has hold on to traditions and values founded on nothing but desire to preserve stability.

    Someone who believes that something is wrong because of something coming from the outside of human consciousness is making an error. Not everyone who believes that slavery is wrong has a ground to stand on, and people can come to the right - or, at least, to the benevolent - conclusion through wrong - or malevolent - reasoning. One can appeal to human intuition (that demonstrably misfires in many cases), or "god" (that does not provably exist), or tradition (that is equivalent to surrendering to the mediocre), or responsibility before the collective (where it comes from, no one has ever explained) - and all of these arguments are wrong and the conclusions derived from them logically unfounded.

    Morality is absolutely subjective, but not arbitrary. It is much like preference between apples and pears: whether apples or pears taste better is subjective, but it is not arbitrary, and every person can determine which it is for themselves. Whether slavery is wrong or not is a question of preference, but for the given individual the preference can be determined - and if the critical mass of people has the same preference, then it becomes a part of the societal culture. Furthermore, one can make an argument that slavery is wrong for everyone who thinks logically, just like pain is unpleasant to everyone even though some may derive a strange pleasure from it at the same time. But even that does not make slavery objectively wrong, it simply makes it universally wrong, which is not the same thing (I would guess that every human who has ever lived preferred the taste of chocolate to the taste of dirt, yet objectively there is no such thing as something tasting better than something else, for taste is something an individual experiences and cannot share with others).
    theinfectedmaster
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited January 17
    @theinfectedmaster

    The basis of morality is subjective because it inevitably requires buy-in. Whether the moral basis is human flourishing, well being, or an absolute rule maker (lol), if someone doesn't accept it, it is useless as a standard. Arguments can be made for why one standard is better than another, but ultimately if it doesn't allow humans to continue living together it isn't going to work very well. 

    Once we agree to a standard, then we can go about measuring actions against that yardstick. We can even make objective assessments. Eg. "Does slavery increase human flourishing, well-being, or please God?" If "yes" it is objectively moral according to that particular standard. 

    Long story short: morality has a subjective basis we can use to make objective assessments of actions 
    Nomenclaturetheinfectedmaster
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @MayCaesar Arbitrary does mean subjective though.
    SkepticalOne
  • OakTownAOakTownA 419 Pts   -  
    Subjective. Even asking this question demonstrates that morality is subjective. Those who claim morality is objective are making a subjective claim.
    theinfectedmasterSkepticalOnejack
  • theinfectedmastertheinfectedmaster 65 Pts   -   edited January 18
    @OakTownA Like one person could think it's okay to kill someone, and another person could not. The vast majority of people wouldn't 
  • @MayCaesar Arbitrary does mean subjective though.
    Arbitrary means without reason, subjective can be reason-based.  Subjective=/=arbitrary
    MayCaesar
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @OakTownA Like one person could think it's okay to kill someone, and another person could not. The vast majority of people wouldn't 
    We have countless examples of people who think killing another is/was okay in our prisons. It's not clear to me what point you're trying to make?
    OakTownA
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    @theinfectedmaster

    The basis of morality is subjective because it inevitably requires buy-in. Whether the moral basis is human flourishing, well being, or an absolute rule maker (lol), if someone doesn't accept it, it is useless as a standard. Arguments can be made for why one standard is better than another, but ultimately if it doesn't allow humans to continue living together it isn't going to work very well. 

    Once we agree to a standard, then we can go about measuring actions against that yardstick. We can even make objective assessments. Eg. "Does slavery increase human flourishing, well-being, or please God?" If "yes" it is objectively moral according to that particular standard. 

    Long story short: morality has a subjective basis we can use to make objective assessments of actions 
    I am not sure I agree with your use of terminology here, but I see your point: given the set of assumptions, within the logical framework one can derive objective statements. In mathematics, we establish a set of axioms that are not derived from anything other than basic human intuition (which is flawed and often misfires), and then everything is objectively derived from those axioms.

    In chess, we accept a set of rules of the game and then make objective judgements within that set, such as, "This move loses by force if the opponent plays perfectly". There is nothing in the Universe that suggests that chess has to have exactly these rules, and one could easily come up with a new game by, say, removing the en passant rule - but, given the rules, one can objectively assess quality of moves, subject to practical limitations given by our inability to calculate every possible variation and "solve" the game.
    SkepticalOneOakTownA
  • OakTownAOakTownA 419 Pts   -  
    "Like one person could think it's okay to kill someone, and another person could not. The vast majority of people wouldn't"
    SkepticalOne said, we see this all the time in society. Look at the debate over the Death Penalty or war. These are two examples where killing people is written into the legislation of the United States, and yet there is a health discussion around if this is acceptable. There are entire groups of people, like the mafia, gangs, police departments, etc. where killing another person is almost expected. So, yes, there are multiple examples where a person or group of people find killing another person acceptable.


    SkepticalOne
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    "Morality" is simply the informal agreement among identifiable groups of people as to what constitutes correct behaviour.    it can be both subjective and objective.   Usually it is based upon tradition, which usually involves the collective wisdom of a people over the ages to come up with a means to achieve social harmony.    But morality changes as times change, and people may regard an out of date moral value which they have traditionally regarded in a subjective way, to critical examination, when it no longer seems to be working.   If the old moral value is judged to be no longer useful or valid, people will use their objective minds to think up a new moral value which will guide their collective behavior, until the time comes to re examine it again.
  • @Bogan The thing is that it can't be objective because some people could think that killing is morally correct.
  • @OakTownA Some people could find it acceptable to kill a person just because he or she wants to do it.
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @theinfectedmaster ;   The thing is that it can't be objective because some people could think that killing is morally correct.

    Most people in the western world already regard the killing other human beings as morally correct in certain situations.  

    In in the western world it is considered that citizens killing other human beings for personal reasons is utterly wrong and offenders are severely punished.   But killing officially for the benefit of the group is not only acceptable, it is behaviour guaranteed to bring great honour upon the killer if he is a member of the armed forces.     One person killing another is considered justifiable when done as an act of self defense, or in the defense of another human being who is in mortal danger of being killed.    Also, at least more than half of western people think the executions of the worst kinds of human predators is not immoral.    So too, the killing of offenders by police officers in certain situations is also considered a killing for the good of the community.   In addition, prison officers may shoot to kill offenders who are attempting to escape custody.   
    OakTownA
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 19
    All ethical statements are literally meaningless. They do not express any facts at all what they express is the speakers emotions like sighs, grunts or laughter.

    When one says "torture is wrong" all they are doing is showing how they feel about torture ; only two types of statement can make genuine truth claims empirical statements "it's sunny outside " this can be verified by sense experience then we have analytic statements "all bachelors are single" these are true on account of the meaning of the words.

    Moral statements do not fit into either category they cannot be true or false as they only express emotions ' boo to torture ' or 'hooray to truth telling'  this is the Boo/Hooray theory of morality or commonly called Emotivism.

    It makes perfect sense to me, although like every so called  moral system it has its critics 
    theinfectedmaster
  • OakTownAOakTownA 419 Pts   -  
    "Some people could find it acceptable to kill a person just because he or she wants to do it."
    True. What's your point? This seems to support my point that morality is subjective.

    SkepticalOnetheinfectedmaster
  • Why does it either or? Why can't it be both?
    SkepticalOnetheinfectedmaster



  • @ZeusAres42

    Stephen Woodford (1:40) - morality is objective and relativistic. 



    theinfectedmaster
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch