Reasonably Morals are Subjective

Thanks Pro.1. RebuttalIn the last round, I asked Pro if he/she affirmed that actions such as rape, torture, and murder were not inherently wrong, but rather a mere example of socially unacceptable behavior. On Pro's view that morality is subjective, it seems to me that there is nothing really "wrong" with actions like rape, torture, and murder. Pro responded by suggesting that this question was only an "appeal to emotion." It is a serious question that has deep implications for the topic that is being discussed in this debate. Are these actions inherently wrong, or are they not? "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."Just as in the last round, Pro demonstrates his/her lack of understanding of the concept of objective morality. "Wrong by circumstance" is an issue with subjective morality, not with objective morality. Pro gives the example of torturing an enemy as opposed to an innocent person. What Pro does not seem to understand is that on objective morality, torture is objectively wrong (independent of opinion or circumstance) so that any type of torture (enemy or friend) would be evil. On subjective morality, however, anyone is able to torture (or not torture) anyone they like, so long as they subjectively believe it to be good. I could torture an innocent person all I like on subjective morality, and it would be just as "good" for me as giving money to the poor might be "good" for you. Pro's example displays a significant problem with subjective morality, not with objective morality. "It is "acceptable" and often done where persons who are sexually assaulted regardless of degree can be even partially blamed for their "flirtatious nature."This is yet another example of subjective morality. If subjective morality holds true, there is nothing "wrong" with sexual assault at all, so there is not even a need to wrongfully blame a victim for flirtatious nature. On objective morality, however, sexual assault is wrong whether one is of the strange view that the victim brought it upon themselves or not. It is objectively wrong.To the argument that I presented in favor of objective morality, Pro gave two rebuttals:"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."I would agree that these moral senses, like our physical senses, could be "fooled by illusions and tricks." However, this does nothing to show that the moral senses do not exist. If you are being tricked into thinking that you are tasting Coca-Cola when in fact you are drinking Pepsi in your cup, does this mean that there is no such thing as a sense of taste? In the same way, just because one's moral sense is under the same sort of trick or illusion, it does not follow that moral senses do not exist at all."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."I agree with what Pro says regarding the limitations of our physical senses, as compared to animals in the examples given. I'm not sure that anything stated in this portion of the rebuttal has anything to do with objective vs. subjective morality (I'm really puzzled with what Pro is trying to demonstrate with the idea of technology.) All I will add is the proposition that it is entirely possible humans are the only beings with a moral sense. Maybe other animals have this sense, and maybe they do not. But we are discussing whether or not objective morality exists, not what it's limitations are. Something cannot have these sorts of limitations unless it exists, in which case our question for this debate would already be answered."Failed to show that there is such a thing as moral sense simply assuming it is there."I do not think that I have made any sorts of unwarranted assumptions with regard to the idea of a moral sense. I gave good reason on why there is no more reason to distrust our moral senses than there is to distrust our physical senses. Pro's only response to this was that if it were true, then our moral senses could be "tricked" like our physical senses. I agreed to this, as it does not present a defeater for our moral senses. As such, Pro has given us no reason to think that objective morality does not exist.2. SummaryIn the last two rounds, Pro has shown that he/she does not understand the meaning of "objective" in objective morality. Every example Pro has given throughout this debate in attempt to discredit objective morality has itself been an example (and a discredit, I might add) to subjective morality instead. It seems to me that Pro takes great issue with what follows from subjective morality. For example, Pro does not like the idea of an act being wrong for several different opinionated reasons, saying that "producing the same ends through different means to the same conclusion... weakens their universal value." In another example, Pro takes issue with the idea of situational morality. This is shown in Pro's example from the second round: "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." Finally, Pro has a problem with the idea that one should appeal to fallacious argument in attempt to support their personal moral views.I am astounded that Pro affirms subjective morality. In each example Pro has given, he/she takes issue with an aspect of subjective morality when trying to argue against objective morality. I agree with the majority of the arguments that Pro has made in this debate. The problem (for Pro) is, these arguments have been against subjective morality! I invite Pro to consider the definition of objective morality (given in previous round) and reconsider his/her stance on the issue.Sources:http://rationalwiki.org...