CreateDebate


Debate Info

90
78
Yes. No.
Debate Score:168
Arguments:131
Total Votes:181
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (68)
 
 No. (62)

Debate Creator

Assface(406) pic



Do objective morals exist?

Yes.

Side Score: 90
VS.

No.

Side Score: 78
3 points

Objective morality exists indisputably in the mind of atheists like Richard Dawkins as societies rational evaluation of values and consequences.

For any action, what will be the result?

Is free sex moral? See what the result will be and decide. A night of bliss, disease, unwanted pregnancies, one parent families burdened off on the state.

An easier option: Is it moral not to eat? Obviously not because we will die.

Atheists will tell us that Christian morality is subjective - but, from the Creators point of view, God knows and wants the best for His creation - perfect values, perfect actions, perfect results; knowing the effects His actions will have indisputably - surely objectivity.

If we are to judge morality by human rational evaluation we should watch the news and read the newspapers and consider whether we are in moral decline.

Side: Yes.
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

Utilitarianism in practice tends to be more subjective than not. "Greater good" according to whom? Who's to decide which results are desirable and which not?

In order for utilitarianism to hold any value as an objective practice, objective moral values must first be established independently of it.

And then what need have we of utilitarianism?

Side: Yes.
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

There are universal human values. The desire for food and shelter, etc.

The fact that some people prefer some things over things doesn't change the fact that in an ideal world, everybody's preferences would be satisfied.

It's true that morality is rooted in subjective notions of good and bad, but certain notions are so universal that it's safe to treat them as if they are objective truths.

Side: No.
aveskde(1936) Disputed
1 point

Objective morality exists indisputably in the mind of atheists like Richard Dawkins as societies rational evaluation of values and consequences.

For any action, what will be the result?

You're just redefining morality to be "consequences."

Morality has always been about more than consequences, it deals with cultural beliefs.

Atheists will tell us that Christian morality is subjective - but, from the Creators point of view, God knows and wants the best for His creation - perfect values, perfect actions, perfect results; knowing the effects His actions will have indisputably - surely objectivity.

Just saying "god makes X objective" is irrelevant to the question. Insisting that god makes morality objective is like insisting that the president makes laws objective. It's a deferral of your subjective judgment to another subjective authority.

Even if there were a god and he made a moral code, it would not be an objective moral code, but a moral code based on that god's whims.

If we are to judge morality by human rational evaluation we should watch the news and read the newspapers and consider whether we are in moral decline.

Morality being what it is, subjective, anyone will tell you that we're in a decline, and anyone else will say that we are in an improvement, and both will be no more correct than the other.

Side: No.
2 points

Objective morals exist, although in a different sense of the word morals. When morals, devoid of the compulsion implied by religion, is defined, the word is nearly synonymous with ethics. Now ethics, a more proper word, is defined as such: a branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct. Objective morals (otherwise known as objective ethics) consist not of a "moral responsibility" to the life of others, but a responsibility to the preservation of one's own values based on objective, and earthy, substance.

Side: Yes.

Merriam-Webster

Objective definition 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art>

Morals definition 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical

It maybe extremely hard for one to be objective, but it is the job of all judges. They are not suppose to let any belief or prejudice influence the court. Does this really happen? I doubt it, but I'm trying to be objective about morals.

Side: Yes.
aveskde(1936) Disputed
1 point

It maybe extremely hard for one to be objective, but it is the job of all judges. They are not suppose to let any belief or prejudice influence the court. Does this really happen? I doubt it, but I'm trying to be objective about morals.

Objectivity doesn't exist for living beings.

Further, all morals are enforced by us alone, and have no natural backing. A natural law is objective, our laws are not.

Side: No.
Assface(406) Disputed
2 points

Objectivity doesn't exist for living beings.

I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Are you saying that, when I say that 2 + 2 = 4 or that for me to walk off a sky-scraper and remain unmoved in mid-air would be impossible, there's no objective value to these statements because I'm a living being?

Side: Yes.
zljohnston(3) Disputed
2 points

we are here because He gave us objectivity and Free will as His favorite creations...yes, He stated what we hold true on earth He will hold true in Heaven....but our morals are guided by Him..

Side: Yes.
1 point

No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true? To make an argument, especially on this issue, proves that objective (external to you, the subject, in reality) morals exist.

Side: Yes.
aveskde(1936) Disputed
2 points

No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true?

We can believe in objective things that also reside in our minds.

To make an argument, especially on this issue, proves that objective (external to you, the subject, in reality) morals exist.

The debate isn't about things being objectively true, but morality being objectively true. Arguing on here doesn't rely on objective morality or belief in objective morality.

Side: No.
questy(9) Disputed
1 point

No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true?

We can believe in objective things that also reside in our minds.

It sounds like you only believe in physical objects, "things." My question is, WHY does anyone ARGUE, make value judgments...invoke a scoring system... where does the evaluation come from if there are only things, but no "right" or "wrong." If you say, it's my "subjective" valuation, then why argue? You sort of disqualify your self from commenting on whether morals are objective or not if you don't invoke "right" and "wrong" in an objective sense. If you say the subjective things could be actually true, you mean objectively true without intending to prove my point; objective truth, right and wrong, and hence "ethics" or "morality" are objectively grounded.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Perhaps, without a God, there is no objective truth but with God, (as most people believe, as I do) there is (this is another debate). If there is a God, the source and creator of all things, our external "point of reference," who made us, and gave us moral laws, both written on our hearts through revelation, then at least under this case, there ARE objective morals and objective truth. Because if he is the source, and origin of what IS, then he is also the objective "original," "model" and "Truth." Therefore actions that are contrary to his nature (e.g. loving, peaceful, patient, kind, self-controlled, just, merciful) AND actions or things by his DECREE: "Thou shalt Love the Lord.... shalt not not murder, etc...", these things are objectively right or wrong, no matter how subjective men may disagree.

Side: Yes.
aveskde(1936) Disputed
2 points

Perhaps, without a God, there is no objective truth but with God, (as most people believe, as I do) there is (this is another debate).

Morality cannot be objective because it is based on a subjective sense, a feeling. Saying that god makes morality, a subjective thing, objective is like saying "Magic made it so" or "Morality is objective because a wizard did it."

If there is a God, the source and creator of all things, our external "point of reference," who made us, and gave us moral laws, both written on our hearts through revelation, then at least under this case, there ARE objective morals and objective truth.

No, you're confusing a supreme authority with objectivity. At the core of it, god's morals are simply his subjective whims which you follow. Also if you try to argue that god is objective, again you are making the mistake of confusing authority with objectivity, or you have committed a logical contradiction by assuming that god is all-present which cannot fit with our universe.

Therefore actions that are contrary to his nature (e.g. loving, peaceful, patient, kind, self-controlled, just, merciful) AND actions or things by his DECREE: "Thou shalt Love the Lord.... shalt not not murder, etc...", these things are objectively right or wrong, no matter how subjective men may disagree.

I'll end with an example that should be easy to grasp.

Kim Jong-il is the supreme leader of North Korea. He makes the laws according to his nature, and enforces those laws with his police and military force. According to your reasoning, he is the source of North Korean objective values, because he is the ultimate leader where he resides.

The simple answer is that he makes subjective values into law and enforces them (more or less) objectively. However if you accept this then you accept that god cannot be the source of objective morality.

Side: No.
questy(9) Disputed
1 point

...is like saying "Magic made it so" or "Morality is objective because a wizard did it."

The simple answer is that [ Kim Jong Il ] makes subjective values into law and enforces them (more or less) objectively. However if you accept this then you accept that god cannot be the source of objective morality.

No, these don't 't fit at all: Wizards, Magic, or Kim Jong Il are not the basis of our reality, or the basis of what was made and what IS.

No, you're confusing a supreme authority with objectivity. At the core of it, god's morals are simply his subjective whims which you follow.

No, they're not whims, as I said, they reflect His nature, what ultimately IS.

Even if things such as love, life, we're subjectively valued and decreed by God, which could be possible (but I would doubt because of the "His nature" argument) this would be the closest thing to objective morals as far as humans can get. They aren't then in the realm of our subjective values but grounded in ultimate reality.

Side: Yes.
Assface(406) Disputed
0 points

Morality cannot be objective because it is based on a subjective sense, a feeling.

That's not the definition of morality. What makes you say that?

Side: Yes.
1 point

yes. but on an individual basis only. we are all free to believe what we want. thats what we were given by the higher power.. free will. we all have our ideals on what is morally acceptable, but since we were all raised different, we cannot judge others. accept youre brothers and sisters for who they are and what they do to define themselves, not by some old archaic code we longer remember....

Side: Yes.
aveskde(1936) Disputed
1 point

we all have our ideals on what is morally acceptable, but since we were all raised different, we cannot judge others. accept youre brothers and sisters for who they are and what they do to define themselves, not by some old archaic code we longer remember....

This is an argument for subjective morality.

Side: No.
0 points

Only in as far as self-preservation. Unless they have a psychological health issue, no one describes murder as a pleasant experience. It's not th at murder is a universal taboo, so much as it will always be considered a "bad" deed in the subconscious we call a heart. To an extent objective morality does exist, but only in the interest of protecting and preserving the species.

Side: Yes.
questy(9) Disputed
1 point

Not so, objective morals extend beyond a "naturalism" or "evolutionary" perspective of "preserving the species." For example it's objectively morally wrong to commit adultery, even though it may result in a new life, and the species may do better. What if your spouse and your lover's spouse said, "it's not wrong, for us." Would you agree with them? Heck no, you would appeal to a universal and objective standard that it is wrong.

Side: Yes.
aveskde(1936) Disputed
1 point

Not so, objective morals extend beyond a "naturalism" or "evolutionary" perspective of "preserving the species."

Morality is an emergent phenomenon based on our evolved minds.

For example it's objectively morally wrong to commit adultery, even though it may result in a new life, and the species may do better. What if your spouse and your lover's spouse said, "it's not wrong, for us." Would you agree with them? Heck no, you would appeal to a universal and objective standard that it is wrong.

Adultery is not objectively morally wrong, and that you suggest it is must mean you don't know what objectivity is.

That you feel it is wrong has no basis on objectivity.

If it were objectively wrong, then natural law would either not permit it or condemn it.

Side: No.
5 points

Morals are based on opinions and ideas which are obviously biased.

Side: No.
Assface(406) Disputed
2 points

The same could be said of everything else known to mankind.

Side: Yes.
Scumbarge(116) Disputed
1 point

Why, so it can!

That doesn't instantly make morals objective, though.

Side: No.
hijodeganas(19) Disputed
1 point

How do you know this? Can you give examples of how murder, for instance, is based on biased opinions and/or ideas?

Side: Yes.
1 point

No. No they do not. Objective things are materialistic. I've never seen a moral floating around, they only exist in the mind.

Sure, the mind is composed of material, but then your talking about the quantitative properties of the brain, not the qualitative properties of the mind.

Side: No.
Assface(406) Disputed
2 points

Do numbers exist?

Does natural selection exist?

Side: Yes.
ryuukyuzo(604) Disputed
1 point

Do numbers exist?

Things exist, but numbering them requires some sort of subjective projection.

Does natural selection exist?

Again, the act exists, but the labeling of it is subjective.

Side: No.
questy(9) Disputed
1 point

Objective things are not confined to materialism. It's not just "in your mind" that murder, rape, child abuse are wrong. We know, you know they are wrong. There are transcendent moral truths, right or wrong, that are true, NOT just in the eye of the beholder, the subject, (therefore subjective), but in the object (therefore objectively wrong, e.g. murder, rape, child abuse). Why else complain about the evil in the world, or evil done to you, if it's just "in your mind?"

Side: Yes.
ryuukyuzo(604) Disputed
1 point

Boy, I've really stirred the pot this time!

Objective things are not confined to materialism.

Then YOU have a peculiar definition of what constitutes as "objective".

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)

adj.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

It's not just "in your mind" that murder, rape, child abuse are wrong.

Yes it is. If there was nothing to label murder as wrong then how could it be "wrong"? This sort of judgment is entirely based on what one subjectively considers moral.

We know, you know they are wrong.

Actually, I don't think any of the things you listed are immoral. Don't put words in my mouth (or rather, project your prejudices onto me).

So I suppose I'm proof that you are wrong. If these things are objectively wrong then I wouldn't be able to truthfully deny them. Walls are objective, I can't pass through them regardless of if I deny their objectivity. But, I can absolutely chose what I view as immoral - if anything. Therefore, morality is subjective.

There are transcendent moral truths, right or wrong, that are true, NOT just in the eye of the beholder, the subject, (therefore subjective), but in the object (therefore objectively wrong, e.g. murder, rape, child abuse).

Again, an act isn't "immoral" until one labels it so. There's no objective immoral acts, it's purely an invention.

Show me an act that is immoral without being labeled immoral. It's impossible, you will never succeed because for the act to be immoral you would FIRST have to label it as such. Understand?

Why else complain about the evil in the world, or evil done to you, if it's just "in your mind?"

Show me where exactly in my comment did I even once complain about the "evil" in the world.

You can't, because I didn't. Stop straw-manning me, you're not fooling anyone.

Side: No.
hijodeganas(19) Disputed
1 point

This is patently false. 2+2 = 4 is objective, but not material, it is conceptual. Things don't have to be tangible to be objective.

The second comment was a complete non sequitir.

Side: Yes.

Morals are a person's beliefs on what is fundamentally right and wrong, based on their opinion, or the opinion of some religious institution. How can opinion be objective?

Side: No.
questy(9) Disputed
2 points

1) I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.... Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay? I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.

2) Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true? Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity or it proves your belief in objective morality.

Side: Yes.
1 point

I don't want to put words in your mouth

Then don't.

but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.

I did not. This is not about ethics, this is about whether objective morals exist.

Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay?

Is it okay for us to invade his country, kill 150,000+ civilians and cause incredible damage to infrastructure, just to impose (y)our democratic values upon them?

I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.

At what point did I say that everybody has the right to live according to their own morals?

Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true?

That is why I argued. Please re-read what you just refuted.

Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity

Why?

or it proves your belief in objective morality.

Why?

Side: No.
aveskde(1936) Disputed
1 point

but you can't say that everyone has their own right to their own morality.... Example; would it be okay if I a terrorist violently murdered your family, just because under his morals and religion, it's okay? I don't think you can really "live with" what you just argued, in the long run.

It doesn't matter what becomes of people who accept that objective morality doesn't exist, for this discussion, because it has no relevancy to the truth of the statement.

Further you can't make a moral argument to support objective morality because it becomes a matter of you using morality to justify morality.

2) Why make or contend for any argument here unless you wanted to convince others that it is universally, externally in reality (objectively) true? Either your statement should be discounted as useless subjectivity or it proves your belief in objective morality.

That morality is subjective is an apparently objective truth.

Side: No.
Assface(406) Disputed
1 point

Let's do away momentarily with your Wikipedian distinction between "ethics" and "morality." Each refers to standards of behavior, what one ought to do in any given situation where there is no other doctrine or discipline for him to refer to.

As such, morality does not fall within the jurisdiction of mere opinion.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Let's do away momentarily with your Wikipedian distinction between "ethics" and "morality."

Yeah, let's dispense with gravity so that we can argue that up is down.

Each refers to standards of behavior; what one ought to do in any given situation where there is no other doctrine or discipline for him to refer to.

If it does not refer to a doctrine or external teaching, it is based upon the mentality of the individual concerned and is thus subjective. For example, the morals of two people may differ. This implies that morality is not a definite, arbitrary thing and hence cannot be objective. Now, I have seen you use numerical examples, so I will express this mathematically:

Where morality E {1,2,3,4}

1 ≠ 2 ≠ 3 ≠ 4

---> 1 ≤ Morality ≤ 4 ---->

---> Morality = x

Understand?

As such, morality does not fall within the jurisdiction of mere opinion.

See above.

Side: No.
hijodeganas(19) Disputed
1 point

You made a category error: you conflated beliefs with opinions. Not all beliefs are opinions. How do you know that morality is based solely on opinion?

Side: Yes.

Morals are completely based off opinions, and opinions are always some form of bias.

Nothing it automatically DEEMED bad or good, it's what we make of it.

Side: No.
hijodeganas(19) Disputed
1 point

First of all, opinions are not always some form of bias. But that's irrelevant.

How do you know that all morality is always based on opinions?

What we "make of" things are not always opinions. When we take evidence or good reasoning we can make scientific laws and theories or even entire philosophies of them.

Side: Yes.
1 point

There is a major problem with using "objective" and "Morality" in the same sentence. The simple fact is that social morality is subjective. That being said there is factual evidence to indicate that there are certain morals or maybe more accurately "principles" that have generally negative consequences if they are violated. Murder, stealing, lying, adultery, ect....generally have negative consequenses. Of course; some people would argue what constitutes negative consequences.....morals and values have more to do with one's personal beliefs and popular social views. For instance; in medieval times it was common practice for women to marry and have children in thier early teens. This was not commonly viewed as immoral. It is commonly viewed as immoral in our society. No; I'm not advacating teen pregnancy. Just sayin.

Side: No.
hijodeganas(19) Disputed
1 point

This is the most cogent argument of them all, but I'm still going to dispute it.

If there is factual evidence on which morality is based, how is it subjective? If we are basing morality upon negative consequences, an objective consideration, then isn't morality itself then objective?

While values may be subjective and influenced by social norms that does not necessarily mean that morality is also subjective.

Whether teens get pregnant early is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of whether their judgment is poor or not, so that was a bad example. Making a bad choice is not necessarily the same as making an immoral one.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Morality is subjective. What one person may consider good can easily be considered bad by another.

Side: No.
Assface(406) Disputed
2 points

This is not an argument; it is a statement of the opposing view.

Side: Yes.
hijodeganas(19) Disputed
1 point

That doesn't make it subjective. That could mean that one person is right and the other wrong.

Side: Yes.