Instigator / Con
3
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#4466
Morality is Objective
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
3
0
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Critical-Tim
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1472
rating
33
debates
46.97%
won
Description
As we begin this debate on the objectivity of morality, I want to express my appreciation for my opponent's willingness to engage in a productive discussion and share their understanding of the world. While we may hold different views, my intention is not to win or lose, but rather to gain a better understanding of this complex topic.
I also want to express my respect to my opponent, and their perspectives. Just as a three-dimensional shape is formed by many two-dimensional images, our individual subjective perspectives are fragments of a larger and more intricate reality. It is only by fitting them together that we can hope to comprehend the full complexity of the world we inhabit.
In this debate, I will argue that morality is not objective, while my opponent will argue the opposite. However, regardless of the outcome, my hope is that we will both leave with a deeper understanding of this topic.
I believe that it is important to approach this debate with an open mind, to filter out biases and focus on the facts, and to engage in calm and rational thinking. It is also important to resist the temptation to only believe what we want, and to be willing to consider and explore ideas that may challenge our existing beliefs.
Ultimately, my goal is to engage in a respectful and productive debate that contributes to our collective understanding of the world.
Round 1
Con
#1
Before diving in I would like to clarify some of the terminology in which we will be using in this debate such as three distinct types of morality, and the difference between morals and ethics.
The belief in objective morality is the idea that there are universal moral principles that are true regardless of individual beliefs, opinions, or cultural norms. According to this view, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, and moral judgments can be objectively justified by appeal to these principles. The logical conclusion of objective morality is that there are objectively right and wrong actions, and that individuals and societies have a moral obligation to act in accordance with these principles. This view often relies on the idea that there are objective values, such as the value of human life, which provide a basis for moral principles.
The belief of moral relativism is that morality is not objective and universal but is relative to cultural or individual perspectives. Moral values and principles are shaped by numerous factors such as cultural upbringing, historical context, and subjective experiences. Therefore, what may be considered morally right or wrong in one culture may not be the same in another culture or society. The logical conclusion of moral relativism is that there are no universal moral principles, and there is no objective way to judge or evaluate the moral practices or beliefs of others.
The belief that morality is subjective holds that there are no objective or universal moral principles that apply to everyone, and that moral judgments are based on individual or cultural beliefs and values. The logical conclusion of this belief is that moral judgments cannot be objectively proven or disproven, and that there is no ultimate moral truth or standard. Instead, moral judgments are based on subjective opinions and subjective experiences, and different individuals or cultures may have different moral codes. This view allows for a diversity of moral values and beliefs, but also raises questions about the possibility of moral progress or moral disagreement.
Finally, we must also recognize the difference between morals and ethics. Morality and ethics are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct concepts that refer to distinct aspects of human behavior and decision-making. Morality is the set of principles or values that an individual or a society considers to be right or wrong. Morality is typically based on deeply held beliefs and cultural norms and is often tied to religious or philosophical worldviews. Morality is concerned with questions of virtue, character, and conscience. For example, an individual may believe that lying is always wrong because it violates their personal moral code. Ethics, on the other hand, is a set of principles or values that guide decision-making in professional or institutional settings. Ethics is often based on established codes of conduct or professional standards and is concerned with questions of right and wrong in specific contexts. For example, a medical professional may be bound by ethical guidelines that prohibit them from divulging confidential patient information. In summary, morality is more personal and subjective, while ethics are more objective and concerned with professional or institutional contexts. While there can be an overlap between the two, it is important to understand the distinct differences between morality and ethics.
It's worth noting that objective morality refers to morals that are based on inherent objective values. However, if morals are based on objectivity or relative to objectivity, it could be seen as a form of moral relativism as it is relative to objective reality. I do recognize this is not disprove objective morality, but felt it was important to acknowledge. Additionally, the standards of which morals we consider objective are relative to modern-day moral standards. We argue about current morals and not morals from the past or future, making them relative to modern-day morals. One may argue that in the past, we were ignorant of the morality of slavery, but this leads to a ton of new questions.
Does that mean we were unaware of morals inherent in certain actions?
Are there more morals that we are currently unaware of that will be discovered in the future?
Is there a limit to how many will be discovered, or will the list grow infinitely as we discover them?
There must be reconciliation for actions that were apparently immoral but done out of ignorance?
Is ignorance a form of justification for moral wrongdoing?
We must also recognize the opposite. Currently we are acknowledging that there are still more morals to be discovered if they are objectively founded and that we are still ignorant to them. Hey enthesis is that there are morals that we hold today that are not morals that should be kept or will in the future be dropped off as no longer valuable or important, such as homosexuality. In many cultures throughout history, homosexuality was considered taboo and immoral. In some cases, it was even punishable by death. However, in modern times, many societies have shifted towards accepting and embracing homosexuality, with some even legalizing same-sex marriage. If morals are objective, how can we consider which morals are to be discovered versus which morals were falsely discovered and are just being held is valuable or being told or indoctrinated as important morals but, in the future, we will recognize them as not correct moral standards.
In one culture, justice may be a form of moral rectification, whereas in another culture, forgiveness or submission may be a form of morality. Is one culture's morals better than another, or is morality inherent to humanity's underlying structure? How can any individual identify this without looking at the culture at large? If one were to examine their own beliefs without considering societal norms, they would have a subjective morality. However, this subjective morality could be problematic if evaluated by someone suffering from insanity. The alternative to looking towards oneself or using subjective morality would be a form of culture or societies standards for morality. It would just be a form of collective subjectivity to form an overall morally relative standard or ethical system. Furthermore, if we're not going to judge our morals based on our subjective interpretations because of wildly varying interpretations of right and wrong and we can agree subjective morality is not a favorable solution. However collective subjectivity is just a form of moral relativism as its relative to the time and culture, which arguably seems to be what many people use today and have done in the past for centuries. In modern culture, slavery is considered an ethical concern and most people are incapable of owning slaves due to their indoctrinated impotence to conform them to society morals and ethics. However, in the past, people had no problem with engaging in cruel and appalling acts of punishment without feeling guilty. This raises the question of how people from the past could do things that people in the present find repugnant. The answer lies in the indoctrination of moral standards that are ingrained into people through the society and culture they were raised in.
An example would be during the era of baby boomers, cultural and societal values played a significant role in shaping the upbringing and lifestyles of individuals. For instance, baby boomers were raised in a society that emphasized hard work and traditional family values. This generation witnessed significant societal changes such as the civil rights movement, women's liberation, and the Vietnam War, which influenced their beliefs and values. As a result, baby boomers tended to have a strong work ethic, valued stability, and security, and were more likely to conform to traditional gender roles. They also preferred conservative styles in fashion, music, and entertainment. On the other hand, younger generations, such as Generation X and Millennials, grew up in a society that encouraged individuality, creativity, and diversity. These generations were exposed to different forms of media, such as the internet and social media, which allowed them to explore a wider range of interests and ideas. As a result, younger generations tend to value self-expression, diversity, and authenticity. They also tend to have more liberal attitudes towards issues such as gender, sexuality, and race. Thus, the differing values and lifestyles of different generations can be attributed to the impact of culture and society on one's development. The societal norms and values that individuals are exposed to during their formative years can shape their beliefs and attitudes towards various aspects of life.
This highlights the fact that the morals and ethics of Gen X may not be upheld by Gen Z. It raises questions such as: which set of morals is more important, and who is qualified to make that judgement? Will Gen Z's values and morals become the ethical standard of society in the future, and will the same thing happen with the generations that follow? It is evident that morality varies depending on the culture, society, and timeline in which people are raised. How can we determine which moral standards are objectively valid across all times and cultures? Who can be the judge of this throughout history and across all cultures?
In conclusion, I have pointed out that moral subjectivity can lead to severe problems as individuals may deviate far from the average and not be viewed as a standard of any sort. On the other hand, objective morality is set in stone and cannot be traced throughout time to any standard, nor can it be judged by any individual. Society as a whole judge what is objectively moral, but even then, society changes over time and has no inherent or fixed moral implication of an action. Ultimately, it comes down to a form of moral relativism where culture collectively decides morals subjectively, so that no one is too different than the rest to make an insane choice of what is moral. Instead, the culture as a whole decides it like a unanimous vote or just a social norm, which is ingrained past conscious choice and into our physiology. Not only do we consciously accept these morals, but we also don't have any remorse for what other cultures would consider atrocious because it has been indoctrinated by our culture and society. Therefore, morality is individually subjective, ethics are collectively subjective, and neither are objectively defined.
Pro
#2
Beginning argument:
Is morality objective? This is a question that has been debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. However, there is a compelling argument to be made for the objective nature of morality.
Morality is grounded in the concept of human flourishing. Human flourishing refers to the idea that there are objective goods that contribute to the well-being and flourishing of human beings. These goods, such as health, knowledge, friendship, and love, are universally agreed upon as objectively desirable and contribute to human flourishing. Therefore, it can be argued that there are objective moral standards that promote human flourishing.
Moreover, moral principles are not just invented but rather discovered through reason and experience. For instance, the principle of non-maleficence, which states that we should not harm others, is a moral principle that has been discovered through reason and experience. This principle is universally accepted as a moral truth, and it is not subject to personal opinion or cultural differences. Additionally, moral judgments are universal, and they apply to everyone, regardless of their culture or religion. The principle of justice, which states that individuals should be treated fairly and equitably, is an example of a moral principle that applies to all human beings. This universality of moral judgments further supports the objective nature of morality.
Furthermore, moral judgments are not just descriptive but also prescriptive. They prescribe the way things ought to be, not just describe the way things are. The principle of beneficence, which states that we should do good to others, prescribes a certain behavior that we ought to follow. This prescriptive nature of moral judgments further supports the objectivity of morality.
Lastly, the existence of moral progress supports the objective nature of morality. Moral progress refers to the idea that over time, societies and individuals have moved towards a more moral way of living. This progress has been achieved by discovering and following objective moral principles that promote human flourishing. If morality were purely subjective, there would be no basis for moral progress.
Morality is grounded in the concept of human flourishing, moral principles are discovered not invented, moral judgments are universal and prescriptive, and the existence of moral progress supports the objectivity of morality.
Rebuttals:
The belief in objective morality is the idea that there are universal moral principles that are true regardless of individual beliefs, opinions, or cultural norms. According to this view, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, and moral judgments can be objectively justified by appeal to these principles. The logical conclusion of objective morality is that there are objectively right and wrong actions, and that individuals and societies have a moral obligation to act in accordance with these principles. This view often relies on the idea that there are objective values, such as the value of human life, which provide a basis for moral principles.The belief of moral relativism is that morality is not objective and universal but is relative to cultural or individual perspectives. Moral values and principles are shaped by numerous factors such as cultural upbringing, historical context, and subjective experiences. Therefore, what may be considered morally right or wrong in one culture may not be the same in another culture or society. The logical conclusion of moral relativism is that there are no universal moral principles, and there is no objective way to judge or evaluate the moral practices or beliefs of others.The belief that morality is subjective holds that there are no objective or universal moral principles that apply to everyone, and that moral judgments are based on individual or cultural beliefs and values. The logical conclusion of this belief is that moral judgments cannot be objectively proven or disproven, and that there is no ultimate moral truth or standard. Instead, moral judgments are based on subjective opinions and subjective experiences, and different individuals or cultures may have different moral codes. This view allows for a diversity of moral values and beliefs, but also raises questions about the possibility of moral progress or moral disagreement.
Just because there are subjective and cultural factors that influence moral beliefs and values does not mean that there are no universal moral principles that can be objectively justified.
The idea of objective morality is not necessarily based on the belief that all moral principles are inherently objective and unchanging. Instead, it acknowledges that there are certain moral principles that are universal and apply to all individuals and societies, such as the principle that it is wrong to harm innocent people. These universal principles are based on objective values, such as the value of human life and dignity, which provide a foundation for moral reasoning.
The discovery of new moral principles and the evolution of moral values do not necessarily disprove the existence of objective morality. In fact, the recognition of new moral principles and the evolution of moral values can be seen as evidence of the universality of moral principles, as they reflect a deeper understanding of the objective values that underpin these principles.
In one culture, justice may be a form of moral rectification, whereas in another culture, forgiveness or submission may be a form of morality. Is one culture's morals better than another, or is morality inherent to humanity's underlying structure? How can any individual identify this without looking at the culture at large? If one were to examine their own beliefs without considering societal norms, they would have a subjective morality. However, this subjective morality could be problematic if evaluated by someone suffering from insanity. The alternative to looking towards oneself or using subjective morality would be a form of culture or societies standards for morality. It would just be a form of collective subjectivity to form an overall morally relative standard or ethical system. Furthermore, if we're not going to judge our morals based on our subjective interpretations because of wildly varying interpretations of right and wrong and we can agree subjective morality is not a favorable solution. However collective subjectivity is just a form of moral relativism as its relative to the time and culture, which arguably seems to be what many people use today and have done in the past for centuries. In modern culture, slavery is considered an ethical concern and most people are incapable of owning slaves due to their indoctrinated impotence to conform them to society morals and ethics. However, in the past, people had no problem with engaging in cruel and appalling acts of punishment without feeling guilty. This raises the question of how people from the past could do things that people in the present find repugnant. The answer lies in the indoctrination of moral standards that are ingrained into people through the society and culture they were raised in.An example would be during the era of baby boomers, cultural and societal values played a significant role in shaping the upbringing and lifestyles of individuals. For instance, baby boomers were raised in a society that emphasized hard work and traditional family values. This generation witnessed significant societal changes such as the civil rights movement, women's liberation, and the Vietnam War, which influenced their beliefs and values. As a result, baby boomers tended to have a strong work ethic, valued stability, and security, and were more likely to conform to traditional gender roles. They also preferred conservative styles in fashion, music, and entertainment. On the other hand, younger generations, such as Generation X and Millennials, grew up in a society that encouraged individuality, creativity, and diversity. These generations were exposed to different forms of media, such as the internet and social media, which allowed them to explore a wider range of interests and ideas. As a result, younger generations tend to value self-expression, diversity, and authenticity. They also tend to have more liberal attitudes towards issues such as gender, sexuality, and race. Thus, the differing values and lifestyles of different generations can be attributed to the impact of culture and society on one's development. The societal norms and values that individuals are exposed to during their formative years can shape their beliefs and attitudes towards various aspects of life.
While it is true that there can be disagreements and debates about the specific content of moral principles, this does not necessarily mean that there is no objective basis for morality. It simply means that there are different interpretations and understandings of what constitutes right and wrong. These debates and disagreements can be healthy and productive, as they help us to refine our understanding of moral principles and develop more nuanced and sophisticated moral frameworks.
This is a shorter argument to start off with, but I feel as if this is all that needs to be said when it comes to my first-round argument. I will be going more in depth, the further into the debate we go.
Round 2
Con
#3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions:
To clarify the necessary terms for me to make my case, I will clearly define both objective and subjective.
Objective refers to something that is independent of personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It is a fact or a reality that is true regardless of anyone's perspective. For example, the mass of an object or the boiling point of water are objective facts that can be measured and agreed upon by different individuals.
Subjective, on the other hand, refers to something that is influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It is something that varies based on an individual's perspective or experience. For example, taste in music or art is subjective because it depends on personal preference and cannot be measured objectively.
In short, objective refers to facts or realities that exist independently of personal opinions, while subjective refers to experiences or perspectives that are influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:
Is morality objective? This is a question that has been debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. However, there is a compelling argument to be made for the objective nature of morality. Morality is grounded in the concept of human flourishing. Human flourishing refers to the idea that there are objective goods that contribute to the well-being and flourishing of human beings. These goods, such as health, knowledge, friendship, and love, are universally agreed upon as objectively desirable and contribute to human flourishing. Therefore, it can be argued that there are objective moral standards that promote human flourishing.
In your argument you claim that human flourishing is the concept of objective morality, I don't see what makes it objective. Isn't the morality of human flourishing not grounded in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs? Morality is a result of personal feelings, and without emotions or sympathy a person would not have a sense of morality, this in itself proves morals only exist subjectively.
Additionally, claiming that morality is based on human flourishing is not only subjective but also highly ambiguous and dangerous. For example, the term "flourishing" could be interpreted in various ways and used to justify actions that are morally reprehensible. As an example, Hitler could have argued that eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities would result in a future where humanity thrives with fewer deaths due to the decrease in less probable thriving genes. He could have further justified that the deaths in the war to achieve this goal would be significantly less than the lives spared from their suffering of living a relatively seeming miserable existence. Therefore, it is important to recognize that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is not objective and could lead to immoral actions.
Moreover, moral principles are not just invented but rather discovered through reason and experience. For instance, the principle of non-maleficence, which states that we should not harm others, is a moral principle that has been discovered through reason and experience. This principle is universally accepted as a moral truth, and it is not subject to personal opinion or cultural differences. Additionally, moral judgments are universal, and they apply to everyone, regardless of their culture or religion.
In your example, you used the universal acceptance of moral judgements claiming it further supports the objective nature as the guide for a moral truth. That is not objectivity as it was not inherent, but collectively subjective, as it was not inherent but rather an agreed upon rule. This agreed upon rule or societal norm was described in my first round as not moral, but ethical.
The principle of justice, which states that individuals should be treated fairly and equitably, is an example of a moral principle that applies to all human beings.
Says who? The people. The people collectively speak up with their subjective feelings forming a collectively subjective ethical standard. Additionally, treated unfairly and equitably, are those not emotional traits. This is furthermore referring to the subjective aspect and nature of morality as morality was stated to be influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. There is no objective law or natural rule that is consistent or inherent within all things.
The idea of objective morality is not necessarily based on the belief that all moral principles are inherently objective and unchanging. Instead, it acknowledges that there are certain moral principles that are universal and apply to all individuals and societies, such as the principle that it is wrong to harm innocent people. These universal principles are based on objective values, such as the value of human life and dignity, which provide a foundation for moral reasoning.
An objective standard is expected to be consistent over time and across individuals since it is based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and universally applicable ethical principles that are detached from personal biases, beliefs, and emotions. This detachment from subjective elements, such as personal opinion or feelings, allows for an objective standard to be recognized independently of emotions or beliefs. In contrast, a standard that is influenced by personal opinions or feelings would be subjective, even if unanimously accepted by a group. For instance, a standard that is based on the collective feeling that something is morally wrong would still be subjective since it is based on personal opinions or beliefs. When we speak of the value of human life and dignity, it is important to note that this value is based on societal norms rather than a natural objective law or standard. Society, as a whole, feels that it is right to value human life and dignity, and this collective feeling drives our behavior. These personal feelings are not the implication of an objective principle but, subjective biases and feelings.
While it is true that there can be disagreements and debates about the specific content of moral principles, this does not necessarily mean that there is no objective basis for morality. It simply means that there are different interpretations and understandings of what constitutes right and wrong. These debates and disagreements can be healthy and productive, as they help us to refine our understanding of moral principles and develop more nuanced and sophisticated moral frameworks.
I acknowledge your statement that disagreements and debates about the context of moral principles do not disprove the existence of objective morality. However, my point is that morality, being an emotion, is inherently subjective, and this subjectivity is necessary for any living being to have personal bias. Bias is a natural evolutionary consequence that helps living beings preserve and value their own lives. The only thing that can be unbiased is something that does not physically exist, such as consciousness. Although humans possess consciousness, it is tied to and ingrained within our physical selves, leading to bias based on our form of being. Ultimately, all living beings have feelings and bias. Those feelings construct morality, and therefore morality is subjective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlights:
It is important to understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity is consistent and inherent for all individuals, regardless of time or place. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is based on emotional feelings and can vary between individuals. For example, one person may enjoy something while another does not, based on their individual feelings.
While there are certain feelings that appear to be consistent, it is important to recognize that not all people share these feelings, and even if so, it wouldn't be objective since it consists of feelings. These beliefs should be recognized as common subjective feelings or beliefs that may be viewed as a collectively subjective ethical standard. Therefore, the existence of widely accepted feelings or beliefs does not necessarily prove the existence of objective morality.
Pro
#4
Rebuttals:
In your argument you claim that human flourishing is the concept of objective morality, I don't see what makes it objective. Isn't the morality of human flourishing not grounded in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs? Morality is a result of personal feelings, and without emotions or sympathy a person would not have a sense of morality, this in itself proves morals only exist subjectively.
The claim that morality is grounded solely in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs does not necessarily demonstrate its subjective nature. While personal feelings and emotions may influence our moral judgments, it does not mean that morality itself is subjective. Objective morality can be understood as a set of principles and values that are based on rationality, well-being, and the intrinsic worth of individuals. These principles can be derived through reasoned analysis and examination of the consequences of our actions, rather than being purely subjective.
Additionally, claiming that morality is based on human flourishing is not only subjective but also highly ambiguous and dangerous. For example, the term "flourishing" could be interpreted in various ways and used to justify actions that are morally reprehensible. As an example, Hitler could have argued that eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities would result in a future where humanity thrives with fewer deaths due to the decrease in less probable thriving genes. He could have further justified that the deaths in the war to achieve this goal would be significantly less than the lives spared from their suffering of living a relatively seeming miserable existence. Therefore, it is important to recognize that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is not objective and could lead to immoral actions.
The argument that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is subjective and potentially dangerous overlooks the inherent objectivity within the concept. Human flourishing can be understood as the overall well-being and fulfillment of human beings, encompassing physical, mental, and social aspects of life. While interpretations of flourishing may vary, there are objective factors that contribute to human well-being, such as health, freedom, education, and social cooperation. Actions that promote these objective aspects of human flourishing can be seen as morally good, while actions that undermine them can be seen as morally wrong.
The example of Hitler and the justification of eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities does not disprove the objective basis of morality. This argument relies on a distorted interpretation of human flourishing and ignores the principles of human dignity and equal worth that are central to objective morality. Objective moral principles can provide clear boundaries and guidelines to prevent the misuse and manipulation of moral claims, as they are based on fundamental values that prioritize the well-being and rights of all individuals.
In your example, you used the universal acceptance of moral judgements claiming it further supports the objective nature as the guide for a moral truth. That is not objectivity as it was not inherent, but collectively subjective, as it was not inherent but rather an agreed upon rule. This agreed upon rule or societal norm was described in my first round as not moral, but ethical.Says who? The people. The people collectively speak up with their subjective feelings forming a collectively subjective ethical standard. Additionally, treated unfairly and equitably, are those not emotional traits. This is furthermore referring to the subjective aspect and nature of morality as morality was stated to be influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. There is no objective law or natural rule that is consistent or inherent within all things.
The assertion that moral judgments are collectively subjective, based on societal norms and personal feelings, overlooks the possibility of moral objectivity. While societal norms may play a role in shaping moral frameworks, the existence of widespread agreement or consensus on certain moral principles does not necessarily make them subjective. Objective moral principles can be based on universal ethical principles and rationality, transcending personal opinions or feelings. It is possible to recognize and uphold objective moral values independently of subjective biases or cultural variations.
An objective standard is expected to be consistent over time and across individuals since it is based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and universally applicable ethical principles that are detached from personal biases, beliefs, and emotions. This detachment from subjective elements, such as personal opinion or feelings, allows for an objective standard to be recognized independently of emotions or beliefs. In contrast, a standard that is influenced by personal opinions or feelings would be subjective, even if unanimously accepted by a group. For instance, a standard that is based on the collective feeling that something is morally wrong would still be subjective since it is based on personal opinions or beliefs. When we speak of the value of human life and dignity, it is important to note that this value is based on societal norms rather than a natural objective law or standard. Society, as a whole, feels that it is right to value human life and dignity, and this collective feeling drives our behavior. These personal feelings are not the implication of an objective principle but, subjective biases and feelings.
An objective standard is expected to be consistent over time and across individuals since it is based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and universally applicable ethical principles that are detached from personal biases, beliefs, and emotions. This detachment from subjective elements, such as personal opinion or feelings, allows for an objective standard to be recognized independently of emotions or beliefs. In contrast, a standard that is influenced by personal opinions or feelings would be subjective, even if unanimously accepted by a group. For instance, a standard that is based on the collective feeling that something is morally wrong would still be subjective since it is based on personal opinions or beliefs. When we speak of the value of human life and dignity, it is important to note that this value is based on societal norms rather than a natural objective law or standard. Society, as a whole, feels that it is right to value human life and dignity, and this collective feeling drives our behavior. These personal feelings are not the implication of an objective principle but, subjective biases and feelings.
I acknowledge your statement that disagreements and debates about the context of moral principles do not disprove the existence of objective morality. However, my point is that morality, being an emotion, is inherently subjective, and this subjectivity is necessary for any living being to have personal bias. Bias is a natural evolutionary consequence that helps living beings preserve and value their own lives. The only thing that can be unbiased is something that does not physically exist, such as consciousness. Although humans possess consciousness, it is tied to and ingrained within our physical selves, leading to bias based on our form of being. Ultimately, all living beings have feelings and bias. Those feelings construct morality, and therefore morality is subjective.
While personal opinions and emotions may play a role in moral judgments, they do not necessarily invalidate the possibility of objective morality. Objective moral principles can be derived through rational analysis, consideration of the well-being of individuals, and the recognition of universal ethical principles.
I tried to do more this time, but it took me a while, so I will stop here for now.
Round 3
Con
#5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:
The claim that morality is grounded solely in personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs does not necessarily demonstrate its subjective nature. While personal feelings and emotions may influence our moral judgments, it does not mean that morality itself is subjective.
As I properly defined before, "Subjective, refers to something that is influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It is something that varies based on an individual's perspective or experience. For example, taste in music or art is subjective because it depends on personal preference and cannot be measured objectively." So, to say "personal opinion, feelings, or beliefs do not necessarily demonstrate their subjective nature" presents quite a logical clash between the definition and your statement.
Objective morality can be understood as a set of principles and values that are based on rationality, well-being, and the intrinsic worth of individuals. These principles can be derived through reasoned analysis and examination of the consequences of our actions, rather than being purely subjective.
In order to objectively measure intrinsic worth, it should not be influenced by personal opinions, feelings, or beliefs. It should be based on objective principles that do not allow for any interpretation, such as the boiling point of water. However, in many cases, people find it challenging to determine the morality of something since it is not defined by a clear line but is instead determined by subjective feelings.
The argument that using human flourishing as a basis for morality is subjective and potentially dangerous overlooks the inherent objectivity within the concept. Human flourishing can be understood as the overall well-being and fulfillment of human beings, encompassing physical, mental, and social aspects of life. While interpretations of flourishing may vary, there are objective factors that contribute to human well-being, such as health, freedom, education, and social cooperation. Actions that promote these objective aspects of human flourishing can be seen as morally good, while actions that undermine them can be seen as morally wrong.
Mental and social aspects of life are often subjective and cannot be directly observed or quantified in the same way that physical objects or phenomena can. For example, emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and values are all mental aspects of life that cannot be directly observed or measured in an objective manner. These experiences are unique to each individual and can vary based on a wide range of factors, including personal history, culture, and social context. Similarly, social aspects of life, such as relationships, social structures, and cultural norms, are often difficult to quantify or measure in an objective way. While certain aspects of social life can be measured, such as population demographics or economic indicators, many social phenomena are more difficult to quantify. For example, measuring the quality of a social relationship is a subjective matter that varies based on individual perception and experience. Overall, while some aspects of mental and social life can be measured and studied through empirical methods, many important aspects of these domains are inherently subjective and difficult to quantify.
I agree that actions that undermine human flourishing can be viewed as morally wrong. However, the interpretable sense of morality as defined here implies subjectivity, since it is possible for someone to hold a different view of its underlying meaning.
Can we clarify what is meant by "human flourishing" - does it refer to present well-being, future well-being, overall well-being, or sacrificing present well-being for the potential of greater well-being in the future? Does it include taking risks that may not necessarily harm current well-being but may reduce the probability of future well-being? Furthermore, the concept of "flourishing" itself can be interpreted in various ways - is it financial, mental, social, or something else? It seems that we do not even have a clear definition of what "human flourishing" entails. Additionally, if you were to try to define it for me, it would still be your subjective opinion. And even if everyone were to agree on that definition, it would simply be a collective agreement of subjective opinions. It is important to note that even with shared perspectives, it would not make it an objective truth.
The example of Hitler and the justification of eliminating certain genes or individuals with disabilities does not disprove the objective basis of morality. This argument relies on a distorted interpretation of human flourishing and ignores the principles of human dignity and equal worth that are central to objective morality. Objective moral principles can provide clear boundaries and guidelines to prevent the misuse and manipulation of moral claims, as they are based on fundamental values that prioritize the well-being and rights of all individuals.
Firstly, the argument still rests on the foundation of fundamental values, and the term "value" itself suggests an emotional factor. As we know, emotions can vary greatly among individuals, and thus, relying on fundamental values to define morality is not a compelling argument. For instance, Hitler did not possess emotions that are generally considered morally good, yet he had a set of values that he believed in. Therefore, claiming that morality can be seen objectively through certain fundamental values lacks solid evidence.
Secondly, well-being refers to the state of being happy, healthy, and prosperous, but the definition of well-being can differ significantly among individuals, cultures, and time periods. For instance, one person may find their well-being in financial success and material possessions, while another person may find it in spiritual pursuits or personal relationships. Additionally, an individual's sense of well-being can be influenced by a variety of subjective factors, such as their emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and personal experiences. What brings happiness, health, and prosperity to one person may not have the same effect on another. Moreover, measuring well-being often depends on self-reporting and subjective assessments, which means that it cannot be measured in the same way as physical attributes like height or weight. Although objective measures can offer some insight into an individual's well-being, such as their physical health or financial status, the overall assessment of well-being remains subjective.
It is possible to recognize and uphold objective moral values independently of subjective biases or cultural variations.
The idea that it is possible to recognize and uphold objective moral values independent of subjective biases or cultural variations contradicts itself. The term "objective moral value" is contradictory because "objective" means free of personal opinions or feelings, yet it is claimed to hold value. If a person has no personal opinions or feelings, it is impossible to say they can hold value. Therefore, the term "value" is inherently related to personal opinions and feelings, and thus cannot be objective.
Just going on a tangent here - Perhaps there are principles (not morals or ethics) that can exist independently of personal feelings and opinions, but in the absence of subjective values, such principles would only be useful as a foundation for a robot.
While personal opinions and emotions may play a role in moral judgments, they do not necessarily invalidate the possibility of objective morality. Objective moral principles can be derived through rational analysis, consideration of the well-being of individuals, and the recognition of universal ethical principles.
While personal opinions and emotions may not necessarily invalidate the possibility of objective morals, their existence has not been proven either. Just like with invisible fairies, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of objective morals, so we have to rely on the assumption that they do not exist until proven otherwise. Furthermore, since well-being is subjectively determined, it cannot be a valid contributing factor to objective morals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highlights:
I still don't believe that you understand the difference between subjective and objective, here is a list.
Objective factors include Temperature, Humidity, Time, Weight, Distance, Velocity, Density, Pressure, pH level, and Energy.
Subjective factors include Personal preferences, Emotions, Perceptions, Memories, Beliefs, Opinions, Intuition, and Attitudes.
If you want a more detailed understanding, check round 2 definitions.
Round 4
Con
#7
I was hoping to gain a deeper comprehension of your original message now that you have a clearer understanding of objectivity and subjectivity. I believe I have correctly grasped the essence of your explanation, but I acknowledge that my understanding may still carry the possibility of being flawed. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate any additional explanations or further clarifications you can provide to ensure a more accurate interpretation of your originally intended meaning.
On the contrary, our morals are chosen for us by our conscience and not something we choose. In essence, the correlation is the same. Only a small number of individuals don't have a conscience, and those are the ones who have no remorse. Back to my point, morals are judged by society's overall emotional values.
Then in the following comment I responded.
In regard to your statement: Societies’ failure to recognize slavery as morally wrong doesn’t mean morality is relative, it just means society was once upon a time ignorant in that regard.
Although I understand that you are suggesting that people in the past were ignorant about the moral implications of slavery, you are still referring to moral implications of slavery that are based on today's moral standards, which is moral relativism, as it's based on modern-day moral standards. Additionally, I said commented, moral relativism posits that moral principles are not inherent or objective, but rather they are relative to an individual's culture and history. I argue that this is a more accurate way to view morality, as evidenced by the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods. For example, in some cultures, it is considered morally acceptable to eat certain types of meat, such as dogs or horses, while in other cultures, this is considered morally wrong. Similarly, in some cultures, polygamy is considered morally acceptable, while in others, it is considered morally wrong. These differences in moral values and principles highlight the subjective nature of morality and suggest that there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people and situations. Moreover, historical changes in moral values and principles also suggest that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors. For example, in the United States, slavery was once considered morally acceptable, but over time, the moral values of society shifted, and slavery became recognized as morally wrong. Similarly, attitudes towards homosexuality have shifted over time, from being considered morally wrong to being more widely accepted. In conclusion, the fact that moral values and principles vary widely across cultures and time periods suggests that morality is not inherent or objective, but rather it is relative to an individual's culture and history. The examples of cultural differences in moral values, such as the acceptance of eating certain types of meat or polygamy, and historical changes in moral values, such as the recognition of slavery as morally wrong, demonstrate that morality is not universal or objective, but rather it is shaped by cultural and historical factors.
Then you referenced your comment: For those of you that believe morality is subjective, a big reason I have a hard time grasping the concept is choice, assuming that it’s true, when comparing it to other unequivocally subjective things there’s a difference and that’s choice, take for example our tastes in food, for those of you this applies to we don’t choose to like unhealthy foods more than healthy foods we just do, or even our tastes in sound we don’t choose to like singer A’s voice more than singer B’s voice we just do. But that doesn’t apply to morality, we choose what code of conduct we want to follow and if we see another following a different one we can dispute theirs in comparison to ours with the hopes of persuading them. Unless you can give examples of other subjective things that are choice I think it’s reasonable to question why is this only the case here and not in any other case and I also think it’s reasonable to have doubt based on that observation. Last note usually when one doesn’t know what a word means (morality) they defer to the dictionary and because they don’t know they approach the definition with an open objective mind, and if you do that that’s also operating under the assumption that the word itself is objective because if you operate under the assumption that it’s subjective your approaching the word with preconceived notions and you wouldn’t be doing that if you don’t know what a word means. But what about subjective words like opinion? I would argue that the only reason we can comprehend what an opinion is is because we ourselves have them, so probably the best way to define it is by examples like the ones I used earlier food and sound, but what if your deaf, blind, and have no sense of taste or smell? Then maybe in that case you can’t comprehend an opinion because you probably won’t have any yourself.
Now that we are all caught up, I will respond from here.
“The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations.”
You’re starting a circle with this response, so how about I just refer you back to my response and perhaps you can go at this from a different angle https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9238/posts/389380
One can present the most coherent answer to a question that matches reality by being critically-minded and challenging their own ideas, bringing up new questions that potentially disprove them, and evolving the idea to fit the new questions. The idea that morality is objective raises many questions, such as how one can know and where is the evidence to support it, while the idea that morality is subjective is already self-evident, as it evolves over time and throughout different cultures and generations. To know if one has a firm grasp of the idea, they must present it as the most coherent with reality and lead to the least amount of confusion. When a question leads to confusion, it fails to answer certain aspects, whereas a straightforward and clear question is the most coherent with reality. This is explained in detail in my forum "Developing an Evolutionary Mindset."
“However, if an individual has a firm grasp of what constitutes a moral, it would not be considered fallacious to them.”
I guess that begs the question, how does one know they have a firm grasp?
Explanation of the word fallacious:
"Fallacious" refers to an argument or reasoning that is flawed, misleading, or deceptive. It's a mistake or error in logic that can make an argument appear to be valid or convincing, even though it is not. A fallacy can take many forms, such as making an unsupported assumption, using irrelevant evidence, presenting a false dichotomy, or attacking a person's character instead of their argument. Fallacies can be intentional or unintentional, but in either case, they undermine the credibility and persuasiveness of the argument. It is important to recognize fallacious arguments and avoid using them in order to engage in productive and effective discussions and debates.
Your statement that "If morals do not exist inherently in reality, then it's fallacious, plain and simple" is not entirely accurate. The term "fallacious" refers to something that is misleading or deceptive. Therefore, if one's understanding of what constitutes a moral is lacking, it could be seen as fallacious. However, if an individual has a firm grasp of what constitutes a moral, it would not be considered fallacious to them. Morals are not inherently fallacious; it depends on whether the individual grasps them. In summary, the concept of fallaciousness depends on the person's grasp of morals, rather than on morals themselves.
“To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality.”
If it does not exist inherently in reality then it’s fallacious, plain and simple.
To sum up the debate, your argument is that morals are inherent and exist independently of human opinions or societal norms, whereas my argument is that morals are subjective and dependent on emotions and societal norms, and do not exist inherently in reality. This is demonstrated by how morals fluctuate over time with societal norms. There is no foundation for your argument as there is no evidence that morality exists outside of human opinions. The only way to support inherent morals is through religion and the belief that the supernatural has set morals for us. Therefore, those who believe in a supernatural being can believe in objective morals, but those who do not believe in the supernatural cannot believe in morals as there is no other evidence for them except through supernatural reasoning. I approach this from an agnostic atheist perspective, acknowledging that it is impossible to prove the existence of something beyond the realm of reality, such as a supernatural entity. However, I also believe that it is impossible to disprove its existence. My argument boils down to the fact that I choose not to believe in things that lack proof or disproof, such as fairies, ghosts, and other unproven or unprovable things. Hence, I find it logical to believe that there is no supernatural being, and that is why I assert that there is no evidence for inherent morals.
“For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it.”
That’s not an argument though.
An emotional decision can still be reasonable. For example, if I have enough money to buy a car and I choose the one I like the best, it may be an emotional choice, but it's still reasonable because it's my money and I can afford it. It's not logical to claim that morals are inherently fallacious just because they are based on emotions and not inherent.
“While logical justification can reinforce an emotional judgment or moral, the moral itself is not logical but rather emotionally driven.”
By that “logic” moral arguments are fallacious by nature.
Did you perhaps think that objective morals referred to inherent morals? Even if so, morals can't be inherent because they are emotional and not clearly recognizable by many individuals without consistent influence from societal norms. Slavery was recognized as morally acceptable for thousands of years, so to claim that others would recognize it as wrong if it were wrong would not be correct based on modern-day moral standards. I'm just trying to reinvigorate the debate to further understand your intentions. Additionally, it may be that you're trying to present an idea that is not fully reflected in the words you're using to describe it. Or perhaps you think that if morals are not inherent, then they have no value, which is definitely not the case. You often hear people in gangs say, "without the code, we have nothing." This is a powerful statement because it demonstrates that morality or value is not inherently seen but rather a form of agreement or bond that is stronger than anything else a person holds physically. I want to make sure I understand your point clearly and reach a mutual understanding. It is my understanding, if a debate is purely based on logical and objective factors, then there shouldn't be any disagreement, as any disagreement would be based on a subjective factor. However, I also recognize that there is most probably logic and knowledge in your idea, but it's not being conveyed with the correct words to express yourself clearly. Therefore, I would like to gain a better understanding of your perspective.
Morals are formed under emotions, which makes them subjective by nature. However, if a moral is discussed without emotions, it would be considered a principle. While logical justification can reinforce an emotional judgment or moral, the moral itself is not logical but rather emotionally driven.
“Additionally, I argued that morals are rooted in emotion, and that an individual without emotions would have no morals but possibly have principles.”
Is it sole emotion or do you believe there’s logical justification for morality?
I did not intend for us to go off on a tangent, but somehow we did. Now that I have created a forum for us to continue our discussion without losing track, let's return to the topic of morals.
In the previous discussion on morals, I believe you mentioned that there are some inherent morals that we can access, although you're not sure how exactly. In round two definitions and at the end of round three, I was discussing the differences between objective and subjective to clarify any miscommunication. Additionally, I argued that morals are rooted in emotion, and that an individual without emotions would have no morals but possibly have principles.
“I believe that understanding this topic is crucial, but I recognize that this debate commentary may not be the appropriate space to delve deeper.”
It was never my intention to stray this far off topic, originally we were discussing morality.
I believe that understanding this topic is crucial, but I recognize that this debate commentary may not be the appropriate space to delve deeper. Therefore, I have created a forum for those who are interested.
Here is the link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9341-developing-an-evolutionary-mindset
“I see your point, but I interpret 'understanding' as being aware of something, rather than necessarily knowing it.”
And what’s the difference between being aware and knowing?
I see your point, but I interpret 'understanding' as being aware of something, rather than necessarily knowing it. And yes, perhaps we've discussed this tangent enough. Let us discuss the dimensionality of morals.
I have recently defined objectivity and subjectivty in round 2.
"A person should act as though their best understanding is known but acknowledge it's only the best interpretation of the world they have currently".
That’s literally what understanding is, knowing. Anyway do you think we’ve stressed this tangent long enough?
I still say, "A person should act as though their best understanding is known but acknowledge it's only the best interpretation of the world they have currently".
- I removed the additional details as they appeared to divert your attention from the main point.
“It is possible for someone to think they know something, but it turns out to be incorrect.”
Then they don’t know it, plain and simple.
"The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know."
It is possible for someone to think they know something, but it turns out to be incorrect. This can happen due to a variety of reasons, such as misinformation, misinterpretation of information, faulty memory, or cognitive biases. It is important to be open to the possibility of being wrong and to continuously question and evaluate our knowledge and beliefs in order to arrive at the most accurate understanding of the world.
In summary, I was claiming that a person can act as though something is a known, but they should acknowledge its only the best interpretation of the world they have currently.
“I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis.”
The operative word in that quote is “know” and the certainty lies there, if you’re not certain than you don’t know.
I believe that you perceive the first and second half of the phrase as exhibiting cognitive dissonance due to your failure to recognize the role of probability in analysis. Initially, a person may analyze the world around them and formulate theories on how it operates. Such theories may suffice for their childhood, but as they transition into adulthood, new challenges and experiences arise, testing and challenging their ideas. Consequently, their understanding of the world must evolve to a more robust and adequate form.
Thus, it is possible for someone to assert that they do not know anything for certain because their ideas are continuously evolving. They may spend time analyzing and making assumptions based on probability while acknowledging that what they hold as true is merely the best option to go off for the present.
“Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know”
Do you fail to notice the cognitive dissonance between the former and the latter half of this? Not everything is a never ending mystery, life is much simpler when there’s closure.
I apologize for misunderstanding your question. When you said, "That doesn't answer the question," I thought I had misunderstood the question entirely. However, I now realize that I did not express my idea clearly enough. I will attempt to summarize it here, but if it remains unclear, I am willing to initiate a forum for the collaborative evolution of understanding.
Although we cannot fully comprehend the multifaceted nature of the world, we create simplified versions of reality known as concepts. However, if we accept our current knowledge as definite or certain, our understanding will cease to grow. It is like a student who attends school but believes they already understand everything and never seeks to learn new ideas or theories. To avoid stagnation in our mental growth, we must acknowledge that we still do not fully comprehend the world, and what we know may not be sufficient in the future. If an idea is no longer sufficient in the future, we must be prepared to seek new solutions or answers and adopt them as our new understanding. Without an open mind and the acknowledgment that nothing we know is certain, we cannot be aware of the potential for a better understanding.
To explicitly answer this statement "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?":
Although no one can claim to know anything for certain, people spend their lives analyzing everything they know in order to refine their understanding and gain a closer approximation of how the world truly operates. This continuous process of critique enables us to adapt our mindset to new and changing climates, thereby remaining relevant to the ever-evolving world and culture around us.
“I based my response on the assumption that this was the question.”
It was, but that response just stresses the importance of critical thinking not how one obtains valuable information.
You said: "Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything?"
I based my response on the assumption that this was the question. If I misunderstood you, it would be more helpful to reply with a more comprehensive response to help me understand the intentions you were attempting to convey, rather than just saying that I didn't answer the question.
That doesn’t answer the question.
You stated: "How does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.
While I understand your point, it's still important to think critically and creativity, as they are essential for progress in collective human knowledge. If we only stick to old philosophies and ideas, we limit ourselves from progress and we stagnate. Simply repeating what we've been told is what makes us mindless followers, not adventurous pioneers. On the other hand, if we think creatively and challenge existing ideas, while acknowledging that nothing is certain, we can become the leaders of humanities collective knowledge and solve problems no one has ever solved. The key is to act on our best understanding until we gain an even better one. So, while uncertainty may seem daunting, it's important to embrace it and use it as a catalyst for growth and progress. In conclusion, acknowledge nothing is certain, recognize your understanding is merely the best interpretation with your current knowledge, and that with time more knowledge will be gained and your understanding will be clearer and more accurate, but you'll never reach perfect understanding.
“I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.”
Then how does anyone know anything if they just spend their life trying to critique everything? Fact of the matter is life isn’t always simple and sometimes all we can do is use our best judgment.
In regard to Tarik:
I'm interested in your perspective on how objective morals exist within religion and how to access them, although you mentioned not knowing the correct interpretation or how to find it. It's important to distinguish between accepting knowledge from others and thinking critically for oneself. Rather than simply repeating information, it's valuable to combine personal understanding with information gathered from others to form a more comprehensive conclusion. Philosophy is different from statistics in that it can be evaluated based on its own logic and merits, rather than relying solely on sources for validation. Progress in human intellect is achieved through the combination of old and new knowledge to form collective knowledge, which is more valuable than any individual source of information. I encourage you to approach information with a critical mindset and question its validity in order to evolve and adapt your understanding of the world as opposed to accepting commonly held beliefs.
“However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.”
I believe it is accessible, unfortunately I don’t know what the correct interpretation is. I’m simply making my claims based on commonly accepted ideas.
I would additionally appreciate YouFound_Lxam's perspective on this subject, as he is a participant of this debate.
In regard to Tarik's response:
Please correct me if I am mistaken, as I am attempting to comprehend your point of view. From what I gather, your assertion is that there exists an objective moral standard, but it is one that is tied to religion and based on God's beliefs and principles. However, you also acknowledge that there is no way to definitively determine which religious text is correct or valid over another, and therefore we cannot be certain that our interpretation aligns with the true text of God, so it is ultimately inaccessible with certainty.
“One could suggest that society's vote determines which religious text is ethical, but that is just another form of collective subjectivity.”
I guess that depends on whether or not that vote aligns with God’s.
I had earlier stated: "If I understand correctly, you're evaluating a person's moral worth based on the accepted morals of society, which isn't an objective or stable form of morality because societal norms change across cultures and generations."
Then you responded: "No, a person’s moral worth is based on whether or not they go to heaven."
While I was referring to morals from a non-religious perspective, I am aware of the Religious Morality you described. Although that perspective may have some merit, it raises the question of why one religion is considered valid over others and who has the authority to judge that. You may argue that it's God's judgment, so let's posit that idea as correct for the sake of debate. But then, how would we know what God judges without a person to tell us, and how can we be sure which human is the real prophet? Some may argue that the Bible is the true reference, but other religions have their own sacred texts. This brings us back to the question of who judges which reference is true. One could suggest that society's vote determines which religious text is ethical, but that is just another form of collective subjectivity. It's worth noting that I am not approaching this from a religious perspective; I cannot speak to the proof or existence of heaven.