R2 of Airmax1227's Basic Tourney TUF VS Fanboy: Morality is Subjective

I would have hoped my opponent would have at least provided his own morals basis, but I will assume it is that of most American citizens, that follow under a religious practice and set of moral guidelines. My arguments may context certain common objective morality arguments, as I have seen presented before. If my opponent chooses to debate outside of these guidelines, than I will alter my arguments to counter his style of objectivity. DEFINITONS:Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes. (Note the use of the word Distinction in the definition. Remember that an individuals own distinction is their own, IE subjective). http://dictionary.reference.com...Subjectivity: Characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind. (most relative definition). http://www.merriam-webster.com...Objectivity: the state or quality of being objective towards an ideal. This ideal then is seen as renown, rather than subjective, which is to say that this ideal can vary between parties. Objectivity is the a view that can be commonly accepted by all parties. . http://dictionary.reference.com...MY CASE Contention 1: There cannot be a universal set of Moral Laws It is impossible. Societal views change and vary between cultures all around the world, and change throughout history. Concepts we view as moral now, contradict concepts those of history have pursued. Let’s take one common issue: Murder. The problem is, that murder is circumstantial. If you were to hear about a man killing another man in the street in the cold blood, you would probably say that the person is of bad moral behavior, based on our subjective read on morals. However, in most societies in history, moral standards were much different. For example, in a lot of societies, people were killed by governments and societies, for such reasons we today would classify as moral. So if people were getting murdered publicly for reasons that contradict reasons we today agree with, how can morality be subjective? Were the actions accepted by millions of people inherently wrong from the beginning of time? If they were how can we justify this? Philosophically, it is much more logical to believe that morality varies between people and societies, rather than being universal. Contention 2: Moral Consequences If Morality is universal, why aren’t there universal moral consequences? When I say consequences, I use the word loosely, by the way. Consequences can range from societal punishment for actions, all the way to the feeling of guilt. But let’ talk about the feeling of guilt for a second. This is a feeling that usually follows a person committing a wrong action. Let’s say you have been raised and taught to believe abortion is a violation of morality. Your friend has grown and learned that Abortion is acceptable. Your friend doesn’t feel guilt for having an abortion. Your friend cannot be punished for having an abortion. There is no moral consequence for their action, other than it offending people of the opposing view type. But if there is no physical consequence, no guilt, anything, than we can safely determine that morality is subjective. Morality between the two individuals obviously differs, but nothing establishes this rule to make it believable enough to say that one person’s morals are more correct than the other. . http://plato.stanford.edu... Sub A: Consequentilism loopholes Point 1: A soldier kills someone in battle. The person he killed was considered a good man by his peers. He never killed, never stole, and treated people kindly. His government drafted him into a war he did not believe in. The soldier that killed him doesn’t know this, and thinks he is defending his country. Most people agree that his actions are acceptable, and he is honored for his actions. Is his ignorance really the line for ending the life of an innocent, good man? Point 2: If a man who killed another man is sentenced to death penalty, and a majority of people believe this consequence is moral, where is the line? A lot of people think the death penalty is a just result. A lot of people don’t. But if it is universal that killing is immoral, as my opponent seems to suggest, than there has to be some diversity in the rule. Point 3: What about the un-informed with good intentions? If you see someone murdering someone on the street, and act as a vigilante and kill the aggressor, just to find out that his victim was planning on releasing Anthrax, did you commit an immoral act? You didn’t know what was happening, but attempted to act in good moral standings. What if a man is sentenced to life in prison for something he didn’t do, but has a significant amount of evidence implicating him? Is it right that he spends his life in prison for something he didn’t do? Is it right that we don’t punish him, when he is the best suspect? Point 4: What about Utilitarianism? Is it okay to kill someone against their will to save more people? What if you were held at gun point, and told to rape and kill a woman or several other people would die? Would committing this act justify the “immoral act” originally being committed? Contention 3: What are the moral laws, who made them, and what makes them universal? What are the moral laws, and how do we know what they are? If we presume they are made by a God, than we submit to universal fallibility. God cannot be physically or aesthetically proven outside of faith principals, and belief. While I hope this debate doesn’t get into God, the question remains. There is no written document, or known set of rules by all people to clarify what exactly these rules are. And to be universal, that would at least require most people to know of what they are and act upon them, would it not? What makes them universal In the first place? Sub A: Theological Absolute Morality is fallible: "There is never any clear, objective, historical chain that might clarify and establish the authenticity of the authorship of religious texts. These writings have been copied innumerable times and have become less and less focused with each copying process. As a result, religious writings have become so ambiguous and nebulous that it is often necessary to substantially re-interpret or re-phrase their meaning. "This quote could not be more true. Not only are their values sourced on hypothesis's pulled from ancient books, and unfactual based religions, there are also countless religions with differing beliefs. Discerning one to be Absolute is Near impossible. We recognize that opposing moralities "exist" Thus we recognize that morality is subjective. Sub B: The Sociological Argument for relative morality. An objective morality becomes a fallible principle when weighing in human expressions. When a Human being is presented with moral confrontation, it has something to do with infringing on the rights or causing harm to another individual. Take other human beings away, and absolute Morality becomes invisible. In reference to the link below, a lone stranded survivor on an island is not bound to any moral laws. There are no other persons whose right he can infringe upon, and thus can create his own laws and rules for his existence upon the island. If there is no absolute binding law for morality, then this man could hypothetically create his own society upon which he could set his own subjective set of rules. . http://www.rationality.net... Conclusion: There are so many loop holes, and problems that go into objectivity that it is difficult to say with any clarity we are all bound by some hidden moral system. We as societies differ so much on things like, slavery, murder, etc, that we can never say that one thing is more right than the other and that it pertains to everyone.