Morality is subjective

Thanks for your response. I'm pretty hungry, and sleepy, so excuse me for any thoughtless errors. == CONTENT == o Refutation of Pro o The Con case o Elucidation on the Categorical Imperative o Summary o Sources =========== o Refutation of Pro My opponent's view, in a nutshell, is the opposite to mine. Most of the points should be addressed by the Con case. Nonetheless, I'll address the explicit claims made. "I believe there is no difference [between morality and moral interpretations]" This depends upon religious orientation. It should be settled by the outcome of this debate; the con case attempts to prove my position. "Morality is so vague." I agree; in one sense- we cannot know what moral laws are, linguistically. E.g. you could not write a "law" that would have determined why Adolf Hitler should be killed. You have to make observations; hence the necessity of a rational agent. "is there a definite way of knowing of what actions are moral and which ones aren't? No." I would argue that there is; I will get into the categorical imperative later. Going into the con case, note that I do believe there are different INTERPRETATIONS of morality. o The Con case 1. Morality Given by God or nature, morality is something that lies within all human beings. It is why people notice when someone "lacks a moral compass"; it is easy to distinguish a moral decision from another. For example, torturing innocent people and eating their children is immoral. There have been cases of such brutality, and anyone with a "moral compass" would tell you that they're morally misguided. Although the perpetrator would argue otherwise, it doesn't mean he has is own "morality". He has his own skewed interpretation, which is clearly wrong by any standard *through the categorical imperative*. 2. Moral inconsistency My opponent is confused here; I will ask a few questions to help clarify. Using my opponent's answer, I will fix this problem q1a) Can societies write their own laws? q1b) Can societies write bad laws? q2) Can a law that accurately abides by objective morality be written by humans? q3) Are societies attempting to, by their own nature, reach their own best ends or interests? o Elucidation on the Categorical Imperative Immanuel Kant had three formulations on the categorical imperative. They can be found here [1] I will attempt to boil them down to the most important points. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ ==> THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: THREE FORMULATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSALIZATION OF A MORAL CODE <== <> FIRST FORMULATION <> The first formulation of the categorical imperative (hereby referred to as CImp) "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature". Using the "universalisability test", we can determine if we have fulfilled the first formulation. The test contains 5 steps, which are: (1)Find the agent's maxim (i.e., an action paired with its motivation). Take for example the declaration "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action; the motivation is to fulfill some sort of desire. Paired together, they form the maxim. (2)Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim. With no exception of one's self. This is in order for you to hold people to the same principle, that is required of yourself. (3)Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. (4)If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world. (5)If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required. I could not fathom any problems with maxims had they been written like this. <> SECOND FORMULATION <> The second formulation of the CImp holds "the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends". In other words, the rational being must act as the limiting condition to all maxims in the sense that it is its own end of means; or rather, it (the rational agent) is both the means and the end. Held to this interpretation, all beings must be respected by maxims, since beings are the end of maxims. <> THIRD FORMULATION <> The third and final formulation of the CImp maintains that maxims be treated as though they would be universal law. In this "realm of ends", all laws would help us achieve the ultimate end, as no one would transcend a universal law. The third formulation is meant to be the determination of what all maxims should be. In a nutshell, we ought treat moral law like we would treat laws in the sense of the second and first formulations- laws that everyone should abide by, that arouse no contradictions or irrationalities, and that respect rational beings as the limiting end of maxims. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ o Summary Given the CImp, we see that morality does make sense as an objective code. There are varying interpretations of it, but the majority of them would likely fail on at least 2 out of the 3 formulations provided by Kant. My opponent, in lieu of this debate, has come to respect Kant's position. I await the response to the CImp, but aside from that I'm going to bed. o Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... PS I began reading Kant hours before I instigated this debate. Probably the greatest coincidence ever.