Morality is objective

I like to thank my contender for accepting the challenge of this debate topic, looking forward to your response to my argument. 

P1 - There are fundamental principles of right and wrong behavior that exist within morality.

P2 - These fundamental principles of morality are ones that most rational human beings already accept and follow, either as a society or as a species.

P3 -  These fundamental principles of morality, is, as a result , universal in nature because of this widely accepted set of truths of right and wrong behavior.

C - Morality is objective.

Now, of course, there also exist certain subjective things in morality that one could follow according to their own personal framework on what they believe is right and wrong behavior. But that doesn't necessarily take away from the fact that there exist a set of moral behaviors of right and wrong, that is objective. For instance; Take two persons.  One is color blind, and the other is not. You show the two a color of a canvas that is painted completely red. The person who is not color blind, sees the canvas as it objectively is. But the color blind person, sees the red canvas as something else, as it subjectively is (like a greyish color), due to their condition. Now, just because the color blind person sees the color as something else, which is the greyish color. Doesn't mean that we can't say that there does indeed exist an objective reality of how the painted red canvas is actually perceived in the world, by most people, which is the color red how it really is. This is my view on morality, of course there are behaviors of right and wrong that can be subjective to the individuals framework. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an objective morality. Principles of right and wrong that is universal for all. 

Greetings, I would like to thank the Pro for presenting this topic, as I am confident it will lead to an engaging debate.

I will begin by rebutting the first argument presented by the Pro, followed by presenting my counter-argument.

Pro admits that morality is subjective, yet simultaneously claims that objective morality exists. This is a contradiction, as objective and subjective morality cannot coexist. The definition of objective morality states: "Objective morality refers to the conception that morality is natural, meaning that it's already in our nature. It is the belief that morality is and should be universal" (optimistminds.com/what-is-objective-morality). Subjective morality is a term used to describe ethical beliefs based on a person's feelings and/or personal opinions. (https://www.cram.com/essay/Meaning-Of-Subjective-Morality)

Since the two terms are clearly contradictory, the Pro cannot assert that morality is objective and therefore universal if they also acknowledge that there are instances when these universals do not apply due to differing moral opinions.

Additionally, objective morality cannot be validated, as it necessitates universal agreement on moral and immoral standards. However, as acknowledged by Pro, individuals often justify their actions within their unique moral frameworks that do not align with any purported universal principles.

Overall, Pro's argument is self-contradictory and lacks evidence to support the idea that morality is determined by universal rights and wrongs, making it invalid. Life is too complicated and complex for a one-size-fits-all approach to  concepts such as morality.

Vote Con.

Thank you for pointing my contradiction in my claims,  I concede that the two cannot simultaneously exist. However, I will still make the claim that morality is objective, just with a better formulated approach.  I retract that part of my argument that asserted "there also exist certain subjective things in morality". As this obviously cannot be if objective morality exist.

There are many principles of right and wrong actions that are rather universal in nature, and as a result leads to what we can already see in our own society and other societies, an agreement on moral and immoral standards. Examples of this agreement on the moral and immoral standards that we can observe in the real world are; (Moral) polite and respectful behavior, helping others when they are hurt, not harming others. (Immoral) committing murder, theft, abuse of power, and etc.

If there were no universal agreement, our world would not be how it is to day. As it would be more chaotic and disorderly due to no wide agreement on these principles and standards. Because of this, morality cannot necessarily be subjective as this would mean that there could be no real truth to what is right and wrong behavior, and therefore we would only act in accordance to what we think is right or wrong, based on our subjective rationality. And it would seem that how our current world is, negates a subjective morality.

Vote pro.

Pro claims that actions like polite and respectful behavior, helping others when they are hurt, and not harming others are objectively moral, while committing murder, theft, and abuse of power are objectively immoral. However, Pro provides no evidence for this claim other than suggesting that without universal moral rules, the world would be more chaotic and it would be impossible to determine right from wrong.

I believe  Pro is overlooking the fact that the world is already chaotic, plagued by disease, crime, war, and general madness, particularly with the ongoing war in Ukraine. If morality were universal, there would be no debate among individuals on these numerous subjects, as the answer would be crystal clear to all billions of people on this planet. However, every action has both its supporters and detractors, who are prepared to label one person a hero and the same individual a murderer.

I challenge Pro to provide substantial evidence for their claim of a "universal agreement" regarding right and wrong,  since they assert that without this agreement, the world would not be as it is today. There has never been a consensus among all of humanity or entire societies on right and wrong, only a majority opinion rather than a universal one.

Even the things that Pro considers "objectively" right or wrong are not universally accepted. Politeness and respectful behavior are subject to the culture one is raised in or encounters. Not everyone is grateful for the help they receive, and opinions on whether one's actions harm another are always dependent on how people view those actions, making it subjective as well

Pro has not demonstrated that morality is objective, but rather presented assertions commonly held by those with an objective outlook. However, these assertions do not prove the objectivity of morality beyond personal opinion, which undermines their argument due to the absence of universal agreement.

Vote Con.

Pro has not provided any rebuttals to my counterarguments and has even conceded some points, admitting that their initial position was based on contradictory opinions. This demonstrates that the claim of universally applicable morality is false, and humans do not adhere to a unified right or wrong belief system. Subjective morality is not only easily proven but is, in fact, self-evident.

Vote Con.

pro has forfeited the remaining rounds which indicates they have no further arguments.

Vote Con.