CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
4
No, it doesn't. Yes, it does.
Debate Score:16
Arguments:18
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No, it doesn't. (10)
 
 Yes, it does. (4)

Debate Creator

thousandin1(1931) pic



Does rejecting objective morality also mean rejecting subjective morality?

In another debate (I won't go into the specific users in question), there was some heated discussion regarding whether a given action was objectively wrong.  The party running the debate was highly irrational, and conflated this position as being one condoning and supporting the action in question, despite the other party's flatout statement otherwise.  The party running the debate in question banned and blocked both attempts at explanation, and went on to further make indirect accusations that either or both of us in fact supported the act in question; as such, said party has been banned from this debate to prevent it from similarly disrupting this discussion.

The implication here would seem to be that if an action is not objectively wrong, it is not subjectively wrong either; that a disbelief in objective morality by definition means a disbelief in subjective morality as well.

Does this remotely hold water?

 

No, it doesn't.

Side Score: 12
VS.

Yes, it does.

Side Score: 4
2 points

Objective morality is simply the concept of something being wrong in every instance no matter what. Rejecting that concept does not mean that you also reject the idea that things can be bad under certain circumstances.

Side: No, it doesn't.

I do not believe that rejecting objective morality has any bearing on whether the individual believes in or follows any kind of subjective moral code.

Pointing out that an action is not objectively right or wrong does not mean that one condones or supports that action. I believe that it is wrong to hurt somebody else's feelings, but that is entirely subjective; there is nothing objective about it. This holds true for everything- good or bad- that can be done.

Side: No, it doesn't.
steve789(207) Disputed
1 point

That type of subjective morality does not exist though. And revenge does not count when considering certain things. Intentional killing is wrong under any circumstance, intentionally domination is wrong under any circumstance (rape), unwarranted assualt is wrong under any circumstance...excedra, excedra...There is no example where wrong can be acceptable. Wrong is wrong, the things defined within wrong are simply definitions of things that are wrong. And they definitely are because within each of those things is inequity done intentionally or unintentionally. My feelings were not hurt BTW -- you are just wrong, and revenge should not be called under the same name as any certain crime.

Side: Yes, it does.
1 point

Oh god was that a blast. Some people get so confused by simple, simple things.

...

No, objective and subjective morality are in fact two distinctly separate things. Also there are no objective, or absolute for that matter, morals.

Side: No, it doesn't.
1 point

"... if an action is not objectively wrong, it is not subjectively wrong either"

I think the contrapositive is less confusing so that's what I will deal with here:

"if something is subjectively wrong, it must be objectively wrong" (1)

I do find there's still room for some misunderstanding though. Let's narrow this sentence down a bit. Let's first assume that we are talking about morality from within the bounds of one specific subjective morality and one candidate for an objective morality. I.e. when I say something is subjectively wrong, I am picking out a wronghood from one specific subjective morality and comparing it to what a candidate for an objective morality states.

Taking for granted that the middle is excluded in morality (something is either morally right or wrong, there's no third option), the only possible scenario where implication (1) can hold is when the subjective morality is equal to the objective morality. The converse holds as well, If the subjective morality is not equal to the objective morality implication (1) can not be true (in that case one subjective wrong would be translated into something that is not objectively wrong).

So the discussion is contingent on whether we believe our subjective morality maps identically to an objective morality. There are some obvious ways of rejecting this. The approach Cartmans suggests is to reject the notion that an objective morality exists (objective in the sense of an mind independent morality) . To reject the existence of such a morality obviously means that implication (1) can't possible be true, because it's always the case that a subjective wrong is not an objective wrong.

Even taking the existence of an objective morality for granted it's still possible to show that the implication is not true. This could be done by showing that the subjective wrong does not align perfectly with the objective wrongs, i.e. one subjective wrong is not an objective wrong. For instance, I might believe that it's wrong to cheat in a snowball fight, but it's not so clear that it's objectively_ wrong.

So in essense, the only case where you would agree with implication (1) is if you are so deluded as to think that your morale code is objectively true, in which case you fit the same category as journalist beheading fundamentalists and people like Hitler.

Side: No, it doesn't.
steve789(207) Clarified
1 point

When it comes to the issue of fairness, it is definitely true. And I believe that only when something is unfair to another is it immoral...but you are right, subjective morality does exist when it comes to things besides the obvious wrongs (rape, murder, theft, excedra...)

Side: No, it doesn't.

Even taking the existence of an objective morality for granted it's still possible to show that the implication is not true.

As one who seeks to define morality by objective standards (I believe in objective morality), I am very aware that subjectively determined moral codes exists. I am also aware that one may fail to see the objective standard that underlies a moral foundation while still maintaining a subjective moral code and recognizing that it is in fact subjective. Rejecting objective morality while embracing subjective morality isn't only possible, it is by far the norm.

Side: No, it doesn't.
1 point

The inherent importance of others creates the existence of right and wrong are that makes certain actions definitely immoral. These two things are about the same...subjective morality is the feeling the something is wrong, and objective is knowledge that something is wrong, both are basically exactly the same. What is inherently wrong is inherently felt, and what is inherently felt to be wrong is inherently known to be wrong. There is really no way to deny morality period unless you were under the delusion that one person could decide that they matter more then another and do harm against them for their benefit.

Side: Yes, it does.
ghostheadX(1104) Disputed
1 point

So let's go by your logic. Ready?

If I wanted to kill someone (I don't), and I immediately thought of morality. If I disown my moral to kill someone, then according to your logic it applies in all circumstances. So killing in self defense is then equal to murdering someone.

Seems like pretty stupid logic to me?

Side: No, it doesn't.
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
1 point

There is really no way to deny morality period unless you were under the delusion that one person could decide that they matter more then another and do harm against them for their benefit.

Historically, this has proven to not be a delusion at all. It's unfortunate, but it happens all too often.

Side: No, it doesn't.
steve789(207) Clarified
1 point

People can deny morality, but they are wrong when they do.

Side: No, it doesn't.