Morality is subjective

1. Morality It does not disprove objective morality is false, but it does make it unlikely. If it were objective, would we not ALL have a sense of morality? Wouldn't we all also have the same views on morality? 2. Moral Inconsistencies R1) I do not think that societies are necessarily attempting to achieve some ultimate good. In history, can you name one society that has seemed to? I said that when they write laws, they at least try to SEEM as if they are conforming to the most common views on morality. This does not mean that they are. You speak as if all people are just striving to be the best people they can. This is unrealistic. I think if morality was objective, this might be possible. R2) I certainly did not agree with you. You want to ignore the biggest evidence that morality is subjective. You keep repeating that they are "interpreting", but you've also admitted that there is nothing to interpret, so how can your stance be accurate? R3)"They are interpreting what is their ultimate greatest good" No. They have learned through their lives what they believe is the greatest good. It comes from nothing but their experiences. "We agree that societies attempt to write laws that are good for them" No. Like I said, they will SEEM to, but often leaders are corrupt and don't. "we agree that they have different interpretations of the same good". Again, I never agreed to that. There has been no evidence that people are interpreting anything. In history, there is no evidence that most people were striving to be as moral as possible. In fact, there is much more evidence that they conformed morals to justify their actions. Such as the Crusades, indulgences, polygamy, invading other countries. Now, some will think these things are moral because that is their morality; as in the morals they have developed through their experiences in their lives. As for our example: INNOCENT PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE KILLED GRATUITOUSLY 1. "A baby fresh out of the womb is innocent. You know they are innocent because they were just born." This is your and my belief, but not all peoples'. In some Christian religions, people believe that babies are born with "original sin" which comes from the story of Adam and Eve. This is why they developed baptisms to erase this. So as you can see there is so far no one that everyone can agree is innocent. 2. " Pleasure is not a sufficient reason to gratuitously murder an infant; further, pleasure is never a good enough justification for anything when it comes to morality" This is your opinion based on your morality. "Immanuel Kant argues is only an issue for "rational beings". Rational beings make judgements based on reason and logic, as opposed to pleasure and emotion." logic and reason are both human made concepts. So once again, deciding if someone is being reasonable or logical is an opinion. Decisions and actions are not governed or fueled by logic. Even if someone acted as you do, why would you do it? Because you would feel guilty about killing innocent people. You made a decision because of an emotion, yet you wish to say you are rational and by definition do not make decisions based on emotions which is a contradiction. The only way to communicate absolute logic is to speak in math terms. I can understand why someone would do something for pleasure alone, even if it is something as dramatic as killing children. I think in certain situations that people can be brought up in, they might think it is right to kill innocent people. Which explains why this happens in real life. Con is being cocky. I have proved many of his points improbable where as he has failed to disprove any of mine. My point is that, like any other thought, morals are learned and developed during your life. There is so much research done on this, look it up, it is called behaviorology. Con is being much too idealistic about the human race. he says we are all striving to conform to some greater morality we all "interpret" in some way. There has been no evidence given of anything that we are all "interpreting". Also, if you merely think back to your history lessons, when has any society been trying to be as moral as possible? Most societies work to make things better for themselves or their leaders work to make things better for the leaders' sake. Con says Immanuel Kant's argument's are rock solid, yet I have rebutted them and Con has not proved my points false. Con wants to say that we all share some same morality and we all interpret it differently. I say we learn our own personal morality through our lives. I think I have proved my point. Make your choice voters. Thank you Con for an invigorating debate.