Reasonably Morals are Subjective

"Question for Pro: In order to believe that objective morality does not exist, Pro must affirm that actions such as rape, torture, and murder are not wrong, but only socially unacceptable behaviors. What is Pro's view on this?", while this is a false dilemma and appeal to emotion through the mentioning of grievous states and crimes I will answer anyway. All actions that are considered "wrong" however suffer the inconsistency and lack of integrity mentioned before; instead of being wrong by principle they are wrong by circumstance. For instance it is "acceptable" to torture an enemy but abhorrent to torture an innocent person, it is "acceptable" and often done where persons who are sexually assaulted regardless of degree can be even partially blamed for their "flirtatious nature" or other such "arguments" about "deserving it", and murder has already been covered above showing that it's not stable or steady in it's reasoning. Rebuttal in two parts: "Argument in Favor of Objective Morality Our moral senses are comparable to our physical senses (sight, touch, etc.) We have no more reason to distrust our moral senses than we do to distrust our physical senses. For example, if I asked, "What evidence do you have for thinking that the external world really exists? How do you know you aren't just a brain in a vat, with a virtual reality programmed into your brain by some sort of aliens that gives the illusion of reality?" The only way that one could try to explain their belief in the external world would be to say "I can see..., I can touch..., etc." But this, of course, would be arguing in a circle. One cannot use their physical senses in order to prove that their physical senses are reliable." A) If we liken our moral senses as our physical senses is it not true that they are, just as our physical senses would be, just as easily fooled by illusions and tricks? Instead of crafty boxes and optical illusions and simple brain tricks however I would pose that our emotions and mental state are where the hallucinations occur for our moral standards. The class "brain vat" question does not defeat this problem particularly because it asks about the stability of reality but does not address the problem of the delusion. Even if one were to note that one cannot define something by itself in this case it does not matter particularly because there is no grounds to believe that moral senses, if such things exist, are stable like eyesight to begin with and if they are especially susceptible to the aforementioned delusions. "However, it seems to me that we are all perfectly reasonable in trusting our physical senses, as it is a sort of properly basic belief (a belief which needs no grounding in other beliefs.) In the very same way, trusting our moral senses as reliable is a properly basic belief. Any argument against the reliability of our moral senses can be countered with a parallel argument against our physical senses. So in order to truly reject the reliability of your moral senses, one would have to reject the reliability of their physical senses as well. This goes to show that each of us can truly sense between right and wrong, and goes against the idea that morals are mere subjective opinions." B) Yet we already know that our physical senses have extreme limitations. If this is the case, if we are to be totally honest with ourselves as people relating to our physical senses, then we must acknowledge our shortcomings as beasts and realize that our moral nature may have the same sufferings. Are we as keen as a dog in any sense? Are we as strong as our gorilla cousins? Are we as spry as other apes? Are we as agile as the cat? I say, no. We have what we have, we are what we are, and if one must draw parallels between what we are excellent at physically one realizes it's not as much as one believes. None of this is evidence, let alone proof, of moral senses let alone that they are acute and reliable. It is through technology alone, as it would be through reason alone for philosophical matters, that we are granted our great position on the planet; it is not our sense that have gotten us this far but those things we make to aid them. So what aids our moral senses if they are as weak? No such technology exists and reason is pliable and emotion is strong; there is no valid reason to have faith in an unaided and weak sense that may not even bet there. Rebuttal: As there is little to do other than note that my opponent has shown all of the subjective morality to be subjective and failed to show that there is such a thing as moral sense simply assuming it is there, assuming it's strength, and proposing it's natural soundness despite their own examples being easily curtailed by how easy the five senses are tricked and how much easier it is to trick them when emotions like fear are apart of the delusion it is confusing to me how the fact that the opposite is true for objective morality does not prove, esp. with the reasoning my opponents poses locking in the very nature of the subjectivity, that objectivity is not there and it is completely subjective. For ask yourself one question: If eyesight were morality what do we do for the blind? For those legal and totally blind? What about the acute? Do we assume normalcy and that senses do not shift, change, or are damaged and altered? When a man loses an eye he loses vision. What controls the moral sense? What can a man lose, or improve, to acquire a heightened sense? It is questionable, the nature of this moral sense, and even moreso the parallel between physicality and that which is seemingly metaphysical altogether. Done.