CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
11
Here's One. There Isn't One.
Debate Score:25
Arguments:27
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Here's One. (7)
 
 There Isn't One. (7)

Debate Creator

Harvard(666) pic



Objective Morals: List A Moral Value That Is Inclined To Being Objective.

Castration? Prebubecent rape? Suicide? Homosexual Rape? - these are morals I feel could perhaps be objective, though, I can find ways that renders them subjective.

I would like a response specifically from Amarel who has explicitly claimed he has given a hint of objective morality- even though that claim seems to have dissapeared.

All other responses are freely welcomed.

**PLEASE NOTE:: DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS DEBATE IF YOU BELIEVE ABORTION (OR ANYTHING ELSE OF THAT NATURE) IS OBJECTIVELY WRONG; YOU WILL BE BANNED**

Here's One.

Side Score: 14
VS.

There Isn't One.

Side Score: 11
3 points

I would like to make a case for Objective Morality if you would choose to entertain it.

My premise is that it's not enough to just say something is moral/immoral based on some arbitrary religious belief or fallible subjective opinion; in order for moral statements to be true in principle they need to be based on mind-independent features of the world. Specifically, the verifiable effects that certain actions/behaviors have in conjunction with natural laws to produce various brain states.

By examining these effects we can arrive at factual statements about how people ought to behave which constrain personal feelings and bias on the matter.

Side: Here's One.
Harvard(666) Clarified
2 points

If you discover how people 'ought' (which is a subjective indicator word) to behave, then how would that prove an objective good way of living (as in how would such discovery claim "action X has been proven to be objectively wrong-" I would then ask: "So how come action X isn't wrong to the ones who commit and enjoy it?"

Furthermore, that discovery seems as fantastical as figuring out how to time travel.

Lastly, what lead do neurologist have on this dicovery? As the title asks: which moral belief is inclined to be objective?

Neuroscientist could be the best approach I suppose; just as physicist would be the best approach for answering how to time travel.

Side: Here's One.
Coldfire(1014) Clarified
3 points

If you discover how people 'ought' to behave, then how would that prove an objective good way of living

Examining the effects that certain behaviors have in a situation and arriving at factual moral statements is not proving an objective good way of living. It’s demonstrating that there are objective standards to base the answers on, which constrains personal opinion and bias.

'ought' (which is a subjective indicator word)

Statements of ‘ought’ might contain subjectivity or objectivity depending on the subject but the word is not, in itself, an indicator of either. “The missile ought to explode twenty meters above the target.”

Even if it was, so what?

"So how come action X isn't wrong to the ones who commit and enjoy it?"

Because it isn’t perceived to be wrong. It could be the way they were raised, a chemical imbalance in their brain, culture, a religious delusion, etc. Our perceptions are prone to being fallible or biased as a result of many possible influences, all the more reason to hold them to an objective standard.

We don’t openly consider what people say contrary to evidence on any other matter perceived subjectively, why then would we excuse people based on their fallible perceptions on the subject of morality? This type of thinking is often mistaken for sincerity but the implications are daunting: “who are we to say that prepubescent rape is ‘wrong?’”… who are we not to?

Furthermore, that discovery seems as fantastical as figuring out how to time travel.

We encounter such discoveries all the time. Questions of behavioral health are more analogous to questions of physical health which are also perceived subjectively. I find it far more fantastical to assert something like John Wayne Gacy is just as morally coherent as Mr. Rogers on account of morals being perceived subjectively.

Lastly, what lead do neurologist have on this dicovery?

This seems like a dishonest criticism. There isn’t just one discovery to be made and just like any field of study, it's a work in progress. It’s not an official field of study as of yet, perhaps it will be in the future but this doesn’t mean we can’t or don’t already make moral judgments based on objective features of the world all the time as well as disregard moral judgments based merely on biased opinions all the time.

As the title asks: which moral belief is inclined to be objective?

The ones that are derived from an objective standard or influenced by objective features of the world. I challenge you to find one that is not.

Side: Here's One.
2 points

You seem to think that a philosophical topic such as ethics has definitions set in stone. This, regardless of the fact that philosophers provide slightly different perspectives on even definitions. I have already previously provided definitions for values and morals. My definitions have not been in opposition to current definitions though they are slightly different (so far they have fit perfectly well). In previous debates we have discussed actions to obtain values and why those actions are morally correct and the values objectively good. Your responses have been that what I am calling a moral issue is, in fact, not a moral issue; ignoring my definitional basis for my statements (regardless of repeated reminders).

Rather than digging through ancient debates to find where this occurred, I'll simply refresh your memory off the top of my head. If my memory is wrong I'm sure you'll correct me:

You stated that food, water, warmth, and reproduction are all we need to survive (I don't believe I argued with that even though perhaps I should have). I argued that eating food (an objective good) is a moral act though how you obtain your food may not be. Your argument was that these basic things have nothing to do with morality (even though its logically consistent within the definitional framework I had provided at the time).

Regardless of where we have previously discussed this, another example of what may fit into an objective morality would be consequences for murder (unjustifiable homicide). Not ignoring the fact that people and groups kill all the time with dubious justification, the need for some kind of justification in order to reduce guilt in one self or moral indignation in others is what makes this an objective moral issue (subjectively experienced but objectively developed). Just to recap then, the need to justify homicide and the idea that absent justification there will be consequences, probably fits into objective morality.

Side: Here's One.
Harvard(666) Disputed
3 points

I argued that eating food (an objective good) is a moral act though how you obtain your food may not be.

... eating food is a moral value ... but ... you seem to think the acquisition, in process, wouldn't involve the slightest moral act? Wow.

Moral- concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Put it this way: A cannibal is committing a moral action when devouring; but the act of slaughtering to devour "may not be".

(even though its logically consistent within the definitional framework I had provided at the time).

Your definition is beyond the scope of Webster's... (and I thought I had no foundational knowledge of morality; you don't even know the definition of morality...).

example of what may fit into an objective morality would be consequences for murder (unjustifiable homicide)

Great... use a subjective term to describe an objective issue... The subjectivity is derived from the perceptions of individuals who view the homicide as being just. Like Hitler, his actions ("unjustifiable" genocide) were justified to him and the Nazi party.

the need for some kind of justification in order to reduce guilt in one self or moral indignation in others is what makes this an objective moral issue

This is a False Generalization: not everyone feels guilt for murdering someone for no reason (I don't know which fantastical world you live in). People kill people for fun (with the "fun" being their justification).

You seem to believe all people consciously justify their actions, which of course is completely erroneous.

Just to recap then, the need to justify homicide and the idea that absent justification there will be consequences, probably fits into objective morality.

Given that need was just invalidated, then, once again, you have failed to hint a plausible objective moral.

--

You should rethink that claim you made about me stupidly offering arguments for objective morality given that you just made this completely absurd, ill-suited, unintelligible argument for only a hint of an objective moral (regardless of repeated reminders).

Side: There Isn't One.
Amarel(5669) Disputed
2 points

I never said acquisition wouldn't be, I said it "may not be" which means "not necessarily".

You have used Webster's definition of "moral". If you use the definition of morality you find for the plural "particular moral principles or rules of conduct". The scope of this definition encompasses my own. Furthermore, if you look here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

You will find Stanford uses a definition consistent with my position.

The issue that you used a Nazi example to address was already addressed in my original post.

not everyone feels guilt

Just because there are people with a disability who feel no need to justify killing, doesn't mean it is not a human property. Sight is a human property regardless of the fact that some are blind.

You seem to believe all people consciously justify their actions

Not at all. The subconscious nature of morality supports my position.

Given that need was just invalidated

No it wasn't.

Side: Here's One.
2 points

All of them. Moral's are created by prey to stop them being feasted on by predators. As a sentient race we have the ability to feel. Those that like being victims have created morals and ethics in order to deplete the ability of predators to feast on them. There is no such thing as good and bad, as has been said its all subjective. I could trip on a step and find myself cursing it out 'negative' or i could say ' oh i need to be more aware of my surroundings' i have gained awareness of myself .(positive)

I could go kill someone on the street ( theoretically speaking) no force of nature is going to come and strike me down. the only reactions there will be are the consequences of societal expectations.

Side: Here's One.
1 point

Wow, sense you know you are total hypocrites when it comes to Abortion and so called moral values from the Left, you would ban that topic? I would never want to waste time debating such a joke of an argument.

Side: Here's One.
Amarel(5669) Clarified
4 points

I would never want to waste time debating

I, for one, wouldn't mind if you stopped.

Side: Here's One.
2 points

Morals are subjective. OK No wait, some are objective. --- maybe.

Can someone please explain the practical value of this distinction.

Side: There Isn't One.
Amarel(5669) Clarified
3 points

The practical value for this or any philosophical distinction is how it affects a persons perspective and worldview. If a person believes in the idea of an objective morality, then they believe that some things are morally right, correct, and good regardless of opinion. The subjective view holds that there is no objective element to morality, that right and wrong is as malleable as opinion. The practical value of this distinction is potentially huge depending on which view is most pervasive.

Side: Here's One.
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

Thanks for trying, but my skull seems thicker today.

If a group of individuals collectively adopt a moral standard against murderer and a single individual also subjectively concludes murderer to be morally wrong, the outcome is the same. What am I missing?

Side: Here's One.
2 points

morality is entirely subjective, based around what helps us individually, as a species, or around our emotions. the problem as i see it is that often emotions are often responses to moral values so in a way it is a bit like the chicken and egg problem, so it can also be said morality is entirely objective

Side: There Isn't One.
1 point

Precisely, it's almost as people try and morph the definition of morality to fit objectively- which it can't.

Side: There Isn't One.
Amarel(5669) Disputed
2 points

"Sorry Spinoza, your whole philosophy is void because your definition of 'substance' isn't something someone else has written down yet. Try again"

"Sorry Amarel, your definition of morality, though within the scope of current definitions, isn't one I like so you must be wrong."

Side: Here's One.