There is no objective morality

I don't think a moral ruler, is the same as a 12 inch wooden ruler.
. . .
Let's say someone makes a moral ruler, it measures a type of Individual Freedom,
Yes, actions can be measured against the type of Individual Freedom Ruler,
But doesn't make something 'Right, it means that actions can be measured of a type of Individual Freedom Ruler,
Improved, chosen,
But 'still to my view lacking the' objective right and wrong,

Vote Reported: Melcharaz // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to con for argument and conduct

RFD:

For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.
Con correctly states the basis of subjective morality and argues with con about feelings regarding morals and morality. I feel Con could have come out clearer in support of Objective morality if he applied utiliarianism and argued more concerning the law, which pro makes a brief passing in but dismisses it in lumping it in with subjective morality.
Pro's example of murder and rape was rather extreme.
Both have good spelling and conduct, though i would argue con seemed more passionate in his expressions.

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules

(1) In order to award arguments points, the voter must:

(a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
(b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
(c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.

(2) To award conduct, the voter must:

(a) Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
(b) Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
(c) Compare each debater's conduct from the debate

How about if my arguments are corrects and I am trying to point out the flaws in their understanding?
Don't you even agree with me here so am I still being a "skeptic" even though you agree with me?

Omar is pressupping you. No matter what you throw at him in this subject, he'll just use hard skepticism to "Why?" you to death. You can pin him down, but he'll just jump back into the "Why?" routine at the first chance. Your only options are to give up any chances of productive conversation or to get him to actually answer your questions (good luck with that)

Hi Omar. I say this as a constructive criticism. Not an insult. You need to be less incredulous (disbelieving) when you argue.

"1. It's not ad populum,"
How is it not? You did not explain it how it is isn't because everyone else sees it therefore it must be true. I only mentioned this part because I have a problem here. Supporting data is not an argument because you would require initial data to use the supporting data to support it and I have already mentioned you cannot know your senses are correct so initial data is flawed.

2.
"Wouldn't you have to prove that what you think is right/wrong is actually right/wrong before saying your action is right/wrong?"
Not really based on proof. Value can be gained without proving it. I hope it would be supported by evidence but not intrinsic to values. If you want to make sure your values are correct then you would require evidence but it is not a necessity to have a value.

"3.Through the corroboration of others."
That is an argumentum ad populum.

I would have a liked an answer to this. Can you give one?
"You don't know there are right because at a fundamental level were accept a truth that are our senses are helpful in perceiving the world instead of proving it."

Vote Reported: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments

RFD: Pro's assessment of using subjective assessments to extrapolate facts about human interaction was ultimately a more convincing argument. Normally I'd be more inclined to go the other way on this subject, but Con did not appear to provide a convincing foundation that would hold objective morality nor was it explain how morality was necessarily objective.

Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the requirements set forth by the COC found here https://www.debateart.com/rules

In order to award arguments points, the voter must:

Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

The voter fails to do this thus his vote is removed.

1. It's not ad populum, it's using supporting data. We do that all the time. If we think or believe gravity causes objects to fall, we then see out supporting data. If other people's data corroborates that, then we can be reasonably sure we are on the right path. Are you suggesting that SCIENCE is basically ad populum? I mean, it's that what science does-- a person obtains data and then also uses the data from others to support their claims.

2. Agreed. Yes. One must ensure their senses are properly formed and ordered properly. If they are mal-formed and not order properly (dis-ordered), then one's interpretation of data will be off. Same question can be said than of you and subjective morality-- Wouldn't you have to prove that what you think is right/wrong is actually right/wrong before saying your action is right/wrong?

3. Through the corroboration of others. Are you suggesting that SCIENCE is purely subjective? Isn't that what science is/does? Uses what we perceive through our senses to obtain info.

Wasn't at my computer which is why I am typing this now.

"1. If i observe that gravity causes objects to fall. And others corroborate my findings...and if MANY MANY others corroborate my findings, then I can be reasonably sure that what my senses tell me about gravity is accurate."
You do know this is an argumentum ad populum right? If a lot of people see it therefore it must be true?

"2. Agreed with a good and proper sense we are at a disadvantage. Likewise the person who has a disordered sense of what is right/wrong."
Wouldn't you have to prove your senses are correct before saying the blind person has the wrong senses?

"3. Agreed. Our senses are what we have. It's what we use to experience the world around us. But against, that doesn't mean that everythign we do is subjective."
Everything we do goes through subjective lens. So how do you propose to find objectivity when everything is subject to our perception?

"But interchanging words doesn't change the discussion."
Value is more specific. The statement would have been if I used opinion is that the rapist likes the opinion of rape being okay so he thinks it is okay. Value is less words.

"Your first question is spot on. If my senses are bad, how can i be trusted to actually know what is objective."
How do you know your senses are not bad?

"By forming against things yo uknow are right-- objective things."
You don't know there are right because at a fundamental level were accept a truth that are our senses are helpful in perceiving the world instead of proving it.

Great questions

1. If i observe that gravity causes objects to fall. And others corroborate my findings...and if MANY MANY others corroborate my findings, then I can be reasonably sure that what my senses tell me about gravity is accurate.
2. Agreed with a good and proper sense we are at a disadvantage. Likewise the person who has a disordered sense of what is right/wrong.
3. Agreed. Our senses are what we have. It's what we use to experience the world around us. But against, that doesn't mean that everythign we do is subjective.

Value...Opinion. You can mince words, change words all you want. It's all the same. People have different values. I get that. But interchanging words doesn't change the discussion.

Your first question is spot on. If my senses are bad, how can i be trusted to actually know what is objective. The key is keeping your senses formed and in shape. Same question pose to you, if your sense of right and wrong is bad...or off...or disordered, how can you be trusted to do what is right? How? By properly forming your "moral compass", if you will. And how do you keep your moral compass in tip top shape? By forming against things yo uknow are right-- objective things.

"I said via my senses. I never said they were good"
If you don't know they are good how do you know they can be trusted in actually showing you what is objective?

"why look inward to determine morality?"
Look al-right Buddhist monk. Without good senses you will be at a disadvantage. This is not Daredevil. You are F*cked and I feel sorry for you if you are blind can't hear or your taste is gone.

"Why not look to something beyond you?"
All you are are your senses. Without it you won't be able to perceive the world.

"If you say morality is subjective, then what you think is right, and you would have to believe that if another person thinks something is right, then they are right...because that is their opinion."
It is based on values more specifically. I consider you calling my argument an opinion deserving of you being lynched. Hope you are ready.
Values is better word than opinion. Opinion is too general not specific.

Ok. I lied. I will respond. Wow. When did say my senses are good source of information? Did I say that? Yo uasked me how I perceive the world. I said via my senses. I never said they were good :-)

But you highlight the point. If you are implying senses are faulty and prone to error, the all the more reason morality is to be objective and not subjective. If your sense is faulty, why look inward to determine morality? If your sense of direction is very poor- would you rely on that to get you where yo uwant to go? of course not. If your sense of what is right or wrong is faulty, why would you rely on that? Why not look to something beyond you?

They rape question is fair. If you say morality is subjective, then what you think is right, and you would have to believe that if another person thinks something is right, then they are right...because that is their opinion.

Nah. Not having issues. I never said "writing the law" is what makes it objective, now did I? Please re-read what I wrote. I said the person that follows the law is being objective. Big difference.

If a person is looking to something beyond themselves to determine morality, they are being objective. If they look to a law to determine the morality of their behavior, they are being objective. It doesn't matter what the law is...could be a law about not wearing Blue on Thursdays....a law about watering your lawn on Fridays....a law about murder...a law about rape...And it doesn't matter if said person is a King, a waif, a pawn or a rock star.

You're actually making my points. You are pointing instances (rape, cutting fingers off etc) and basically implying that it shouldn't matter what the person things (feels or opines about the subject), you are implying that despite what the person (the King or me) thinks, it's wrong. Guess what...that's being objective.

"Ok. What speicifically did I accept to be true and not tell you how?"
Your senses being a good source of information.

"Does the fact that I'm blind negate the fact that water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? nope."
If everyone was blind then yes.

"We use our senses to perceive and detect gravity. Does that mean gravity is purely subjective? of course not."
We cannot be sure on our senses because we cannot verify them to be true.

"What exactly was the strawman you said I concocted?"
You said this "So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right?"
Fair representation would be if person values rape then that person would say rape is okay.

Ok. What speicifically did I accept to be true and not tell you how?

Does the fact that I'm blind negate the fact that water is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom? nope.

I'm using "we all do" as reason. I don't see how yo ucan make that claim. You're making the claim that everything is subjective because we use our senses. I'm simply stating that just because we use our senses to perceive the things around us, that doesn't make everything objective. We use our senses to perceive and detect gravity. Does that mean gravity is purely subjective? of course not.

So, tell me...how did I interpret your argument? That's the best example to see if you understand that person-- restate what the person said (perhaps in slightly different terms) and see if the other person agrees. What exactly was the strawman you said I concocted?

And this will probably be the last I'll respond today-- I'm about to go watch some MARCH MADNESS BABY! GO TEXAS TECH! (Not really a Tech fan, but they are the team from the greatest state in the union still worth watching).

You are really having issues here. Writing a law about something doesn't make the morality behind it objective, it means that a social construct was created to prevent people from doing something. Different nations have different laws that are created to fit the morality of their respective cultures, so if two systems of law oppose each other are they both objective at the same time? If the law says the King is allowed to rape your wife is it objectively right? If you want to say that it's just my opinion that rape is harmful, how about I cut your fingers and toes off and feed them to you? If you tell me it hurts, well that's just your opinion I guess.
But in reality something can objectively create a subjective feeling in someone. If I physically harm you then you objectively are feeling the subjective feeling of pain. It really isn't rocket science my dear boy. The law objectively exists as a social construct the validity of which is subjective and things can objectively trigger subjective feelings in people.

You do thing where you accept something to be true without telling me how. That is part I have a problem with.

"I use my sense to perceive my world. We all do. But that doesn't mean everything is subjective."
How? If you are blind you can't see a chemical makeup. If you are visually impaired you can't see a chemical makeup that well.
We all do is not a good reason for why it should be accepted without proving it.
Everything is subjective because it is dependent on the person perceiving it whatever it maybe.

"Explain it? Didn't you accuse of constructing a straw man by bringing about the worst extent that logically follows"
My argument stating rape being good was not my argument. My argument was if the person values rape then rape for him is okay. Your interpretation of my argument was unfair.

"Yes. It wsa brought up in the debate arguments."
Okay

For the record, i don't care much for votes :-) Votes, after all are...dare I say it....subjective....lol. It's a matter of opinion.

This is fun though and it's good having lively debate and civil discussions. I do this to try and stay sharp. Iron sharpening iron, ya know.

I respect the fact that thus far no on has ventured into the realm of insults etc (which seems to run rampant on other sites).

I use my sense to perceive my world. We all do. But that doesn't mean everything is subjective. I use my senses to observe that water is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms coupled with 1 oxygen atom. Does that mean the chemical makeup of H20 is purely subjective? Of course not. Facts/objectives abound and we use our senses to discover/uncover these facts.

Explain it? Didn't you accuse of constructing a straw man by bringing about the worst extent that logically follows (i.e someone thinking rape is good), and you called it unfair. My response to you was, the discussion of morality concerns human behavior.....you can't say morality is subjective and then change your tune because all of sudden the behavior is now deemed severe.

Yes. It wsa brought up in the debate arguments.

You won this, I'll vote soon.

If we were playing "Match Game" a giant RED X would appear after your response.

The moment you say it's against the law, you're being objective. Happens every time. Subjective means influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. The fact you say it's against the law, means it's objective (i.e. not dependent on a person's feelings, tastes, or opinions).

You realize that in a subjective morality, what you just said is just your opinion. YOU think that it brings psychological/physical harm, etc....but what if others disagree. What if they share your same feelings or opinions? In fact, what society as a whole deems "rape to be good". Something tells me you still wouldn't be ok with that.

You bring up a good point-- the notion of "harm". So what is harm. What you consider "harmful" others may not......so again, in a subjective morality it all becomes a matter of opinion. You have no basis to call sometihng good or bad, other than just your opinion. And your opinion is just one of millions.

"I guess that depends on who you ask. People use different objective standards all the time: some base the morality of their behavior on what their parents think....or what their spouse thinks....or what the government says....or what they believe God says."
More fundamental. What do you use to perceive the world?

"If you are going to say morality is subjective, you can't change your story based on the severity of the action."
I did not understand this.Can you say it in a different way?

"And for the record, I wasn't the one who introduced rape and murder into the discussion ;-)"
Who was it?
This was from you
"so say someone rapes someone.
Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?"
Which was the first sighting I saw of rape in the comments section. Guess you are counting the debate as well.

What the fuck is goin on with the votes in this debate? It looks like a mod changed the votes to give an unfair win to con.

"What are you using to measure outside youself?"

I guess that depends on who you ask. People use different objective standards all the time: some base the morality of their behavior on what their parents think....or what their spouse thinks....or what the government says....or what they believe God says.

It's not a strawman. I think it's very fair. Morality referencing behavior...actions..... Behavior is deemed either good or bad. If you are going to say morality is subjective, you can't change your story based on the severity of the action.

And for the record, I wasn't the one who introduced rape and murder into the discussion ;-)

Yes, rape being wrong is a matter of perception and opinion. But there are still logical reasons not to rape or to allow rape. rape is psychologically and physically harmful and can result in unwanted pregnancies, therefor it is against basic human empathy, against the law, and against the good of society to allow people to rape.

@Type1 "Objective means that something is a fact. Subjective means it depends on perception rather than reality itself."

Ok. I'm going to stick with the rape scenario.

Consider this statement: "Rape is wrong." Is that a fact. Or is it simply a matter of perception?
Are you willing to say that "rape is wrong" is simply a matter of opinion?

"You can't measure outside yourself?"
What are you using to measure outside yourself?

"So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right?"
So the person thinks believing in something without evidence is rational? I can play the same game don't strawman me I won't do it back to you. I am aware of showing the worst extent of someone else's logic but that was unfair. You did not fairly represent me.

"yes, I get it. We use our senses,"
Then how is anything objective?

"We use our senses even to explore scientific data-- but I'm willing to bet you would now say that science is objective...."
Science is a standard we apply to our subjective senses in order to find out fact in what we are constraint by (senses).

Everything else was basically fluff. I want it to be specific not story time with GuitarSlinger. I have to agree with you on the fundamentals before I go along with your hypotheticals or real-world examples.

You can't measure outside yourself? Of course you can. I'm willing to bet you do it all the time. If you want to see how wide a table is, do you eyeball it and stick your arms and say "Hmmm, i think it's about 4 feet wide".....no, you get something else (measuring tape) to measure it. You are using an objective standard (the measuring tape) to measure the table.

When you travel from one town to another, you don't use your own idea or inkling or sense of direction. No. You use objective standards outside yourself to guide you, to give you direction. The sailors of yore did not use their own idea of North or South when the sailed the seas....they used objective standards, like the sun, the moon, the stars, a compass, an astrolabe to guide them. What would happen if they used their own sense of direction instead of objective standards? They'd get lost.

same thing happens with behavior. When we use our own idea of what is right or wrong as opposed to objective standards, we become lost.

It's not a strawman. It makes a point. So the person who thinks Rape is ok is in the right? If you say "No", i'd like to understand why you think it's wrong? What is your basis or reasing for it-- simply because you think it is? That's not a good enough answer .

yes, I get it. We use our senses, but that doesn't mean we are being subjective. We use our senses even to explore scientific data-- but I'm willing to bet you would now say that science is objective....

Objective means that something is a fact. Subjective means it depends on perception rather than reality itself.

"The moment you look outside yourself to measure against, you are now being objective."
You can't measure outside yourself. You are your senses.

"but as soon as you pose a scenario/question like rape, and say one guy thinks it's ok, the other guy thinks it's wrong, folks start acting like morality must now be objective."
Do you like strawmans? I made it clear what I said. If the person values rape then that person would consider it okay if the person does not value rape for him/her it is not okay.

"but the moment the individual looks beyond himself (i.e. looks toward society) to determine what's right or wrong, the individual is being objective.."
Looks beyond himself? You can't do that. Everything goes through your senses. Do tell me what doesn't.

"Society can very well make laws that are subjective, but when the individual looks to this law, the individual is being objective."
I don't know where you got society from but it still does not help your point. Looking is using subjective senses.

Guys, I think you missing the whole idea/understanding of what subjective/objective is.

When you look to yourself to determine if something is right or wrong, you are being subjective.
The moment you look outside yourself to measure against, you are now being objective.

So you can either look to yourself (subjective) to determine what is right or wrong, or you can look to something external, like a law, etc to determine what is right/wrong (objective)

Folks want to shout "SUBJECTIVE" when it comes to determining behavior, but as soon as you pose a scenario/question like rape, and say one guy thinks it's ok, the other guy thinks it's wrong, folks start acting like morality must now be objective.

Also, don't confuse the individual with society-- they are two distinct entities. Granted, the individual is a part of a society....but the moment the individual looks beyond himself (i.e. looks toward society) to determine what's right or wrong, the individual is being objective...

Society as an entity can also be subjective or objective. When the society looks inward to determine morality, society is being subjective. Society can very well make laws that are subjective, but when the individual looks to this law, the individual is being objective.

The law is not objective except in the sense that humans objectively make up laws and there are objectively consequences for breaking them. If Bill wants to kill me then I will kill him instead and molest his wife and his grandmother.

*same goes*

So goes for my pick on DDO

No, it's a Jpeg for a chess variant that I coded for local use. I did it the lazy way without rule enforcement.

Yep CD=create debate. RM used to be called Prodigee on CD and he was the supreme troll of the site until I came along.

An elephant?
Was that one of the ones DA gave you to pick?

I think CD is createdebate or something.

Yeah, unless I missed something, lol.

DDO

Are you from CD?

You made an account that quickly?

I see some familiar faces on here. I feel comfy already.

"Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?"
I was putting into the context of what created the universe. There are multiple explanations and the currently accepted one is the Big Bang.
About the rape part. If the person finds rape okay then by his standards okay but that doesn't mean there isn't another standard like the law which will jail A.

so say someone rapes someone.

Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.

They are both right?

"that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?"
Yes. If this was used in the real world you do know it would be false dichotomy right?

"Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity."
You can't prove objectivity we use our senses which are subjective to perceive the world. A is correct.

"yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it."
An objective standard through a subjective lens. Objectivity is more than that. It is saying we can know something outside our senses but we can't.

"See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."
Yes it is based on the standard someone follows.

"Who is right?"
Depends on their standards. If they follow the same standard that is logically consistent then one is wrong.

Let me ask you this, if there are two possibilities for a situation-- either A or B...not other possibility, only A and B are possible...and you show (reluctant to say "prove) that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?

Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity.

Your hypothetical scenario basically proves my point. You are saying in your hypothetical that you can't be subjective because with opposing views, one has to be wrong. In order to call the "other" wrong, yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it. You are saying the person made that claim is wrong. By saying that, you are appealing to an objective standard that is "outside" the two individuals. You are saying "See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."

To put another way, suppose to guys are arguing about how long 12" is.
Joe thinks 12" is about the length of a banana
Bob thinks 12" is about the length of a motorcycle

Who is right? Who is wrong? How would you determine (or better yet, how should THEY determine) how long 12" is really? THey should use not what they "think" is correct, but rather some objective standard that is outside of themselves, such as a ruler or some other thing that is known to be 12".

"The ground he's standing on is shaky ground at best."
Objectivity is shaky because then you have to prove your axioms to be true. You can't take them for granted if you do then it might as well be subjective.
What are you axioms?

"then that means that he is right....But it also means that I'm right as well, since we make our own morality in a subjective morality world."
Depends on the morality. If you both have the same version of morality then you both can't be right if you are making contradictory claims. Lets say you both think it is moral to bring the most well-being to the most people. If one says I am not willing to do a wrong thing in order to have more wellbeing to a greater number of people then the person who made that claim if they are following utilitarianism is wrong.

The ground he's standing on is shaky ground at best.

If he is actually correct (i.e. right, and not wrong) in his assessment that morality is subjective, then that means that he is right....But it also means that I'm right as well, since we make our own morality in a subjective morality world.

It's self-refuting.

He does have ground to stand on but it won't be objective.
Am I allowed to comment on the debate when the debate is currently in progress?

Type1 you got this.