CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It is a property of living humans to maintain individual life and that of valued others.
Elaborate on 'valued others'. If you mean like the value of a child to its mother then I would argue that this value placement is entirely instinctual; and in the event a mother does the opposite then an argument can be made that she has psychological problems. This would not make actions that go against the inherent trait 'immoral'.
For humans to continue living (solitary or in groups), certain conditions must be met.
I feel as though your presupposing that humans have 'rights' to live.
To meet said conditions, certain actions must be done and certain actions must not be done.
In the event that the actions that must not be done in fact are, how, then, does that make them wrong (esp. if the previous premise isn't entirely true).
---
I wouldn't render this argument invalid just yet, rather unelaborated.
This is coming to an existential debate- you could just actually argue for suicide being immoral, your premises would support this notion if you exclude external value placements.
I wouldn't render this argument invalid just yet, rather unelaborated
I tried to keep it as simple as possible to fit the criteria of your debate and will now elaborate.
If you mean like the value of a child to its mother then I would argue that this value placement is entirely instinctual
This is one of the premises upon which I make my argument, not the argument itself. There is plenty of room in this argument to claim this premise is a matter of instinct. Similarly you could argue that the drive to maintain ones own life is instinctual (the drive not the means). If these drives were instinctual it would actually benefit my position.
an argument can be made that she has psychological problems
Psychological problems do not remove the impropriety or incorrectness from the action itself. Psychopaths have a condition that causes many of their actions to be incongruous to humanity.
This would not make actions that go against the inherent trait 'immoral'
Before you can make this claim, you will need to define what "moral" and "morality" is. Unless your working definition is essentially the one I have previously provided, in which case your statement would likely be incorrect.
I feel as though your presupposing that humans have 'rights' to live
This is a premise that builds on the first. Rights are a moral concept, so building them into the deductive explanation would render the whole explanation invalid, that's not what I have done. I am simply stating that the first premise cannot be satisfied without certain conditions being met.
In the event that the actions that must not be done in fact are, how, then, does that make them wrong
If the premises are true, taking action that is contradictory to the conditions required for the first premise would be incorrect insofar as said actions would be contradictory to life and life's conditions. Said action would go against an inherent trait of humanity and so is incorrect to/for humanity. Given the structure of my argument, incorrect in this context is morally incorrect and so can also be called "wrong".
you could just actually argue for suicide being immoral, your premises would support this notion if you exclude external value placements
External values are required for the second premise, given conditions would include that which is external. That being said, my argument clearly holds morality to be a property of living human beings which means that, depending on the context, suicide may only be amoral rather than immoral.
Similarly you could argue that the drive to maintain ones own life is instinctual (the drive not the means). If these drives were instinctual it would actually benefit my position.
How so? This is the reason that I say there is a necessity of "god" in order to have objective moral truths; I say this because who's to say that we are morally obligated to keep ourselves alive? These drives are incessantly counteracted daily, and this is the essential problem moral absolutist face.
Psychological problems do not remove the impropriety or incorrectness from the action itself. Psychopaths have a condition that causes many of their actions to be incongruous to humanity.
The derivative in the basis of your argument is in terms of evolution, evolution produced these psychopaths which would therefore render the activities they do perfectly natural, so how could they do wrong by nature (as you say 'evolution' is the inclination for establishing objective morals) if nature - the cause of their predisposition - is the very reason for their 'wrongdoings'?
Before you can make this claim, you will need to define what "moral" and "morality" is. Unless your working definition is essentially the one I have previously provided, in which case your statement would likely be incorrect.
By all means pick a definition from the dictionary:
Morality
1- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
2- a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society:
3- the extent to which an action is right or wrong
Moral
1- of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes.
2- expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3- founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom
4- capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct
5- conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral )
-----
Said action would go against an inherent trait of humanity and so is incorrect to/for humanity. Given the structure of my argument, incorrect in this context is morally incorrect and so can also be called "wrong".
Again, nature produced the predisposition that gave rise to these immoral actions so you mustn't invoke inheritance when humanity doesn't have a specified system upon which they must act on- which is why it must be rendered subjective.
my argument clearly holds morality to be a property of living human beings
This doesn't make it objective. Interpretation of beauty is a property of human beings (and somewhat quintessential to life) but that doesn't make it objective.
There are a few statements in the quote that this question follows.
who's to say that we are morally obligated to keep ourselves alive?
First, asking "who" begs the question. Like asking who caused the big bang. Second, as stated, morality is for the living which is why suicide may be amoral depending on context.
The derivative in the basis of your argument is in terms of evolution, evolution produced these psychopaths
Your mistake is in holding evolution as a static state rather than as a process. Just as people with disease may be driven against their own species, others are driven to eliminate the threat. If psychopathy was a superior evolutionary trait, it would be a dominant trait. If it's the next step in evolution (unlikely), then it will become a dominant trait.
The definitions you provided push the question one step further to define what "right" is.
Again, nature produced the predisposition that gave rise to these immoral actions so you mustn't invoke inheritance when humanity doesn't have a specified system upon which they must act on
Nature commonly produces situations that are incongruous with efficient survival. These traits are weeded out. There are things that humans actually must do in order to live. Some conduct allows humans to live better than other conduct. This is true regardless of opinion rendering this aspect of morality objective.
There are things that humans actually must do in order to live. Some conduct allows humans to live better than other conduct. This is true regardless of opinion rendering this aspect of morality objective.
This begs the question of what conduct is better for whom... This is an unsolvable question which now renders the argument pointless.
Your mistake is in holding evolution as a static state rather than as a process. Just as people with disease may be driven against their own species, others are driven to eliminate the threat. If psychopathy was a superior evolutionary trait, it would be a dominant trait. If it's the next step in evolution (unlikely), then it will become a dominant trait.
The dominance of this trait irrelevant, and you mistake is presupposing that psychopathy is apparent- which in most cases it isn't. And it is not only psychopaths that do things that could be considered 'immoral', different people operate in different ways. Sure, everyone requires a system that would best suits their survival, but the fact that you are saying a universal system in which people must conduct themselves and to do otherwise would be objectively 'wrong' is what is false.
The definitions you provided push the question one step further to define what "right" is.
Exactly which answers itself with a person considers what is "right" and each individual has different considerations, thus subjective morality.
First, asking "who" begs the question.
Bad analogy, we know who say's we are morally obligated to keep ourselves alive: individuals. My thing is there is no universal agreement - and never will be - on a code of conduct which renders morality's entirety subjective.
---
I understand you are advocating for the objective aspect of morality. I don't disagree on the objective aspect, that is, that it objectively exist. However, I disagree that there is an objectively right way one must conduct oneself. Sure, it sounds nice to have a robotic species, but that's just fantastical thinking and should be saved for fictitious discourse.
Except for your last statement where you say that you understand, there is no indication that you in fact understand. If you understood the position I am presenting, you would also understand that claiming morality is strictly subjective is like claiming that one can do whatever one wants and still survive. All of your rebuttals have been no more than an assertion of your own position without providing the underlying reason why your position is correct. You recognize that morality is experienced subjectively and that people have different opinions. From that you conclude that this is all there is. Your current response follows the same pattern as your previous responses and indicates that you are partially, if not entirely, failing to grasp what I have actually said.
My thing is there is no universal agreement - and never will be - on a code of conduct which renders morality's entirety subjective
It is my opinion that I can build a great house out of ice cream. There must be no objective standard for houses.
All you do is point out nonexistent facets of morality and claim that there is possibly some objectivity.
Your arguments for objective morality continues to point to subjectivity as others seem to constantly remind you. Essentially you unwittingly don't argue for objective morality, you just use sophistry as a tool to invalidate arguments supporting subjective morality.
I believe you know you can't make a valid argument for objective morality which is why you succumb to survival as if that somehow promotes objectivity- which is another argument entirely.
You argument wasn't even deductive, or perhaps was just invalid and unsound.
You do give a good inductive argument for obj morality but do know that that is all it is, inductive. But a very weak one nonetheless.
Morality is by the very definition and nature subjective (unless you're religious). Now Let's move on, if you choose to hold an erroneous notion and ideology then so be it (some people still believe the earth is flat).
This is essentially what you always do. I say "The objective nature of morality can be seen in A, B, C because of X, Y, Z" to which you long-windedly respond "that's not true".
Your arguments for objective morality continues to point to subjectivity as others seem to constantly remind you
Some have tried to argue this, still others have agreed with me. The best argument I have had so far was not that I was indicating strict subjectivity, but that my use of certain words was problematic to them. When worded differently there was common ground.
All of your responses, including this one, have been negations without explanation. This is partly why I assert that you fail to understand my position. The other reason is because you used to argue against the notion that morality is even a code of conduct, which implies that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest.
You argument wasn't even deductive, or perhaps was just invalid and unsound
Are you unsure?
Is it the case that there is no action that must be avoided in order to live? Are one's actions really so unconditional?
Now Let's move on
Long ago I was content to drop this topic with you. One can only argue against "nuh uh" for so long.
So bascially the whole subject of meta-ethics is a nonsense to you. Plato, Aristole, Kant... All just idiots that just didnt grasp logic thst of course there cannot be an objective basis for morality because "Subjective subjective subjective subjective!!!!"
I've been hearing debate after debate on the question of objective morality. Does it exist or not. Is all morality subjective. I admit that I do not understand the importance of the distinction. Can you explain it?
I admit that I do not understand the importance of the distinction
Morality the basis for much of human conduct and interaction. A societies dominant view will eventually define the institutions of law and government. If the impropriety of murder is simply your opinion, and institutions reflect this error, the destructive implications would be far reaching.
This distinction is admittedly unimportant to most people. We just have a sense of morality and we follow it uncritically. This works fine for most people, much of the time.
The most interesting reason for me as to why the distinction is important is that.. If morality is just a matter of opinion then it is impossible to logically justify criminal sanctions. If someone kills another and says it was the morally right thing then it woukd be unjust to send him to jail just because his subjective morality differs from that of the legislator's (although then again if morality is subjective then what is and isnt just is also subjective...). Without admitting at least that there is some basis of morality outside the individuals opinion, everything in law becomes impossible to justify.. For example we recognise that punishment shoukd be proportionate and this then opens the door for discussion on what exactly it should be proportional to etc but if morality is subjective then we cannot assume that law has to be proportionate because the fact it should be proportionate is actually just opinion that is no more valid than saying that laws shoukd not be proportionate.
Criminal sanctions and criminal law do not have to be based on morality.
They can be based purely on the social contract. In order to co-exist in the same society, every individual must implicitly agree to behave by certain standards. These standards, morality and law, maintain the society amorally.
I am not sure if there is such a thing as objective morality, but human morality is fairly subjective and human society can be looked at as amoral. I am positing that there is no social human objective morality and societies are amoral with no right or wrong, only cost/benefit or risk/reward.
For example, a nomadic tribe 5000 years ago would not have very good medical technology and limited resources. They could choose to leave a sick member behind or stay and try to treat the sick member. Morally ambiguous. It could risk the welfare of the entire group for the welfare of one.
Compare that to a nomadic tribe 5000 years in the future. They have near comprehensive medical technology with near unlimited resources. Choosing to leave behind a sick member instead of treating him would most likely be viewed as morally wrong.
I am saying both groups would weigh the situation based on risk and reward. Even if there are subjective moral reasons for the situation, the decision and the action are amoral. Human morality is just a construct to convey social standards. There might be objective morality that encompasses all living things; I am just focusing on human morality.
Furthermore, you should think about this statement; plenty of profoundly intelligent individuals hypothesized illogical matters in attempt to describe things - Plato believed that we knew everything in a world before we were born, and when we finally are born we forget and as we grow we learn what we had forgotten in the past.
Most importantly this statement is a logical fallacy.
Well I was just trying to get you to realise that the question of to what extent morality is objective is not a stupid one. Some people have dedicated their whole lives to it and it is not as simple as you think. We have tried to explain it to you but you don't really get it I don't think.
If someone says"Einstein thinks jeans are stupid so they must be" that is an appeal to authority. If someone says "Einstein agrees with my position concerning the nature of light", that would not be an appeal to authority.
In arguing that meta-ethics is an important philosophical subject, Atrag showed that important philosophers studied it. He didn't say they were right, only that their effort was not philosophically meaningless.
plenty of profoundly intelligent individuals hypothesized illogical matters in attempt to describe things
The matter of metaphysics and epistemology are not illogical, regardless of his conclusion.
Perhaps the whole subject of meta-ethics is not in fact nonsense to you and he simply created a straw man, but that's a different fallacy.
If someone says"Einstein thinks jeans are stupid so they must be" that is an appeal to authority. If someone says "Einstein agrees with my position concerning the nature of light", that would not be an appeal to authority.
You've created an entirely different fallacy, using a grossly different comparison to make his point seem better. Eisenstein's agreement of light (an objective element that can be scientifically tested) vs. a philosophers agreement on a subjective notion (morality, which requires human postulations) are entirely two different agreements. For him to note morality as being objective given a renowned philosophers 'says-so' is in fact appeal to authority, erroneous as it may be.
"Well I was just trying to get you to realize that the question of to what extent morality is objective is not a stupid one"
His point wasn't that some smart guy said it so it must be true, his point was that smart people debate about meta-ethics, so it's worth consideration. If you disagree, why do you debate it so much? My analogy was flawed though since he wasn't actually using great philosophers to support his specific position.
Objective morality is an idea that a system of ethics or moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but is actually factual, i.e. objective.
Usually, the source is God, etc etc and as such it has been argued that no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor has there been any justification to the effect that morality is anything more than subjective.
A number of philosophers have asserted the existence of a godless objective morality.
Holding morality to be strictly subjective stops a little too short. What is it that makes a thing right for the individual? What do they use to justify their subjective opinion? If moral judgments are true only in the context of individual values, what about values that are universally held by sane individuals?
Exactly, from the looks of it, there is none. I'm glad we got that settled, there is no such thing as objective morality; the only [deductive] argument that can be made for objective morality is from a religious perspective.
(Note: Anyone who disputes this statement without submitting a deductive argument via left side will be banned effectively. Rejecting this statement without even offering any substance in an argument format shows your incompetence.)
I personally have never been able to make sense of people who argue in favor of objective morality. I had what I once thought was a logical argument, but other than that one minutely unlikely possibility it just seems impossible.
Well taste is objective and subjective. Taste preferences depend on olfactory preferences since olfaction determines taste. You build upon your taste profile as you experience new things. You have hardwired taste preferences but also acquire new preferences through experience.
If taste is equivalent to morality, then I guess that would make morality objective and subjective.
The research is not in yet on hardwired taste preferences, as those could be passed on by the mother or infantile memory correlations. The research has shown that people acquire new taste preferences over time and through olfaction first.
