Reasonably Morals are Subjective

Thanks Pro.1. RebuttalPro seems to misinterpret the meaning of objective morality. Here is a definition that may be of help to Pro or readers: "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true." [1] Each of the three objections given by Pro in attempt to take issue with objective morality were themselves subjective examples. Let us take a look at each objection given by Pro:"1. Instability: Morals have 'arguments' that are generally unstable producing the same ends through different means to the same conclusion which in turn weakens their universal value."Pro gives five examples to illustrate this point. The problem is, each is an example of subjective morality! Pro lists five different explanations for murder being wrong. One example is "murder is wrong because no one deserves to die." But surely Pro must understand that this very statement is a subjective one. If objective morality were true, it would mean that murder is wrong independent of each of the subjective examples given by Pro, as these examples are all subjective opinions as opposed to objective fact. So it seems that Pro's first objection takes issue with subjective morality, and not with objective morality."2. Inconsistency: Morals are often amended as per the situation granting a clear difference between one act and another despite there being no real differentiation."Again, Pro has misconstrued the true meaning of objective morality. By its very definition, objective morality cannot be "often amended as per the situation." This is just another example of subjective morality! Let's take a look at one of the examples Pro gives:"A man steals $1 from a child who only has $5 and is trying to save for a toy. The same man steals $1 from a billionaire who isn't even aware it's missing. in this example materiality is the deciding factor and often one crime is considered worse than the other despite the fact that they are actually the same act."On objective morality, theft is theft. It is our subjective opinions that lead us to believe that stealing from a child is worse than stealing from a billionaire. "3. Lack of Integrity: Morals are quick to dissolve when contested particularly because they do not require adequate backing in order to achieve their state as a standard for behavior."Here Pro gives an example saying "It is wrong to clone things because it is unnatural." Again, this is a subjective opinion. On objective morality, no opinion (i.e. "because it is unnatural") is needed, because the act itself would either be inherently wrong or right.2. Question for ProIn 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?3. Argument in Favor of Objective MoralityOur 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. 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.4. SummaryPro gave three objections to objective morality, though we saw that each of these objections were instead describing subjective morality. This is either a misunderstanding of what objective morality entails on Pro's part, or perhaps Pro affirms objective morality and has accidentally chosen "Pro" instead of "Con." I provided reasoning for thinking that our moral senses are as reliable as our physical senses, so that they are more than subjective opinions. Pro has failed to produce any warrant for his/her claim that "Morals are Subjective" and thus has not carried his/her share of the burden of proof.Back to Pro.Sources:http://rationalwiki.org...