Rebuttal 1: There exists an objective reality
Con asserts that there is an objective reality. The possibility of God existing would, alone, require extensive proof(that has not been brought to here). Even if an objective reality exists, it is impossible for us to be able to sense it as objective, due to that no matter whether if we perceive the world subjectively or distort our subjective view of the world, the "objective world", whether if it exists, cannot be used by us or sensed. When we see the world, it is already subjective, due to our perception negating us from sensing the "objective world", whether if it exists, because when we perceive the world the world will, by definition, be no longer objective anymore. The objective world, if it exists, would be like the invisible dragon in the garage: It breathes invisible fire and roars sounds we cannot hear. How, exactly, can we prove that the objective world really exists, to us?
Objectivity can obviously be rationalized, however, it remains untouched and disconnected from subjects concerning morality: Sentient beings such as people who either distorts it(interprets the objective world) or distort it in another way(according to Con, we distort our subjective views of the objective reality, which is indirectly making the morality, to the person, subjective; and subjective views are still distorting reality by definition), making the world, to them, subjective. No matter what they are perceiving and distorting with their consciousness and views, the world is, by definition, subjective. If you perceive and interpret(morality is trying to interpret the world by asserting something as good/bad, or right/wrong), it becomes subjective. Objectivity, even if it exists, would have no impact on this debate due to none of the subjects capable of generating moral claims can experience genuine objectivity, nor can they utilize it, nor can they extract any moral statements from an objective world.
Therefore, even if there exists already-rationalized "objective truth", we cannot be able to acquire the so-called "truth", due to that in the pursuit of truth, all evidence, at the end, is empirical(For example, Copernicus concluded that the earth is rotating around the sun by looking at the sun and other celestial objects with a telescope, and Newton theorized that gravity exists by noticing an apple falling from a tree). Empirical evidence are, at the end, subjective, due to that it is our perception that makes those so-called "facts" facts. We cannot prove that all objects are not pushed by invisible aliens to make the illusion of gravity, and we cannot prove that our world is not created last Thursday and all the memories before that were fabricated. All things we consider truth are, in the end, just what we believe to be true. Even if objective truth exists, it would be up to us to consider it true or not. The "truths" we consider to be truths are, in the end, interpretations of the world they observe. Even if objective truths exist, we would be disconnected from it because the moment we consider it "truth", it is subjective truth to us; The moment we observe the world and try to make statements about the world, it is subjective.
Other things, such as mathematics, can be concluded just by theory. However, the likes of mathematics concerns nothing of moral conduct in behavior, and thus cannot be considered morality.
Due to all experiences and all interpretations of us are, essentially subjective, there is no proof that objective morality exists at all due to all ideas come from minds. We cannot prove that there is objective morality due to that such idea is outside the minds. Unless one can prove that one can, indeed, perceive the objectivity, it cannot be proven that objective morality exists, or matter to the beings concerned. In order for something to be considered of morality, it must concern moral conduct or behavior, and "objective morality" does not concern moral conduct or behavior due to the disconnection of it from anything that is concerned by morality. That is equivalent to it not existing, just like you cannot prove the existence of an invisible dragon that breathes invisible fire and roars inaudible noise.
All people
but you must not forget, morals are defined as 'principles', in other words, they are constructs meant to be applied. They are by definition then, applicable to all people.
Con offers no source for the definition for "principle". On top of that, even if principles are constructs meant to be applied, it is meant to be applied to personal conduct, as abiding by the definition of "behavior". There is nothing suggesting that principles concerning personal conducts are meant to be applied to all people, but if the definitions suggest any one thing, it is that such principles are meant to be applied to personal conduct.
The T-shirt metaphor is not on-point either: Morality, by definition, isn't something to be applied to all people, so in reality "morality" is more like a custom and personalized shirt that only one individual wears rather than any T-shirt that all people can wear.
Rebuttal 2: There exists objective morality
An individual may perceive abortion as murder, while another may believe it is not. There is no doubt that people will debate these concepts; but you must remember, it is not the morals that are subjective, it is our views, our perceptions and our understanding of these morals that are distorted. We as humans distort all that we experience through our own senses, our own biases and our own experiences. That said, the object of our distortion is not the reality we perceive, but instead our perception of the reality.
The section above about "truths" that do not concern moral conduct can be dismissed as irrelevant. Now, this.
Con claims, indirectly, that there indeed exists objective morality, and we perceive upon those moralities. However, we do not know if there is objective morality at all! Objective morality would need to exist beyond perceptions and interpretations, which is impossible due to the nature of morals are sets of rules that consider something as right/wrong, etc., thus perceives and interprets the world. Other claims based on that we perceive objective morality would crumble and would not get a section for refutations.
Morals must either be defined as objective truths, or as opinions.
Moralities are neither: They are sets of rules constructed by certain individuals to judge their behaviors. Moralities are not "I think abortion is wrong". They are "Abortion is wrong", believed by themselves. They consider things right and wrong and they are not opinions, at least not in the way Con thinks it is, such as "This church believes abortion is wrong". Morals, in the end, are subjective truths.
If a moral is defined as anything besides an objective truth, it must then be defined as an opinion; in such a case the moral can be interpreted as an objective statement of some subjects opinion on some particular matter.
That makes no sense. If it is objective, it won't be a statement of opinion. Con provides zero base for this statement.
There would be an objective truth-- regardless of if you could prove it, know it, or even think it.
If you have read my argument, then you should know what I have against it. If you don't, scroll to the top of my R2 argument.
Argument 3: Hume's guillotine
This source explains Hume's guillotine. In reality, all moral statements can be transcribed as an "ought" statement, just like "Abortion is wrong" is the same as "One ought to not abort". However, no objective statement can lead to a conclusion like that, even if we consider everything we consider facts objective. Here is an example of Hume's guillotine.
- It is true that abortion causes pain of the mother
- Thus one ought to not abort
The problem arises here: What is my hidden goal? Was it not to cause pain for the mother? What if I specifically want women to suffer? How do we know that is wrong, or we ought to not intentionally cause pain of the women? That is something else we cannot prove. The goals, in the end, are subjective, as it is us who want the woman to suffer or not suffer. We do not know which one is objectively true. If anything, we consider the one matching our personal moral standards true, subjectively.
In the end, we cannot consider moral statements true or justified fully and rationally just by facts. The "counterexamples" given in the source would be easy to defeat, as we cannot prove to have a moral obligation to keep promises or anything. It can be pointed out that "ought" statements can have a goal, but even that, the goals are subjective.
Conclusions
- Objective morality can't even exist due to the nature of morality
- Even if there exists objective truth, we cannot prove it true
- Morality is defined as to conduct personal behavior
- Moralities are subjective facts
- We cannot derive moral statements from facts, even if those facts are objectively true
- In the end, it is still unproven that morality is objective
- Morality is still proven to be subjective. Vote Pro.
I would advise not to write long paragraphs like that all the time, it just gives both me and possibly the voters a headache trying to read it.
On a side note, even if physics are objective morality still cannot be automatically be proven to be objective, due to that physics are all “is” statements and “is-ought” statements aren’t automatically connected to each other.
Alright
Let's talk about this elsewhere. This debate is about morality and not science.
What are you talking about? Newton's law of gravitational attraction is objective because any person anywhere can use the equation to accurately describe and predict the attraction of gravity. We can calculate mass and distance. Therefore, we can calculate gravitational attraction.
It is influenced by personal feelings. Newton’s laws are subjective. We just feel like that it is true. In reality, it is all due to that we see the world in a certain way to make Newton’s conclusions seem true, when in reality there is no actual way to prove that it will apply the next time a force is upon an object. We simply cannot prove it.
In order for something to be objective, It needs to be determinable independently and it's truth value doesn't require any kind of emotion or personal feelings. Newton's laws of gravitational attraction fit every single criteria of objective.
No. The fact that maths and science are advancing every single day means that we cannot know that we truly gathered "objective science" no matter how far we are. We used to consider Newton objectively correct, but now we use his theory in support of someone elses' more exact theories, like ones coming from Einstein.
Do you think science and mathematics are objective?
Con either accepted knowing this or accepted without the knowledge of this, in either way bringing up this fact would be devastating for him: If he considered enough, he may have left without accepting.
Though, if he accepted this, there is a chance that he has a counter to it.
If one wants to play the sceptic game, they can very easily make the argument that absolutely every fact is subjective.
Define subjective, because I would say it's objective, insofar as it's intersubjective