Atheistic Objective Morality

Thanks MagicAintReal! I agree with my opponent’s observations of the burdens, morality and objectivity, so I’ll directly move on to refuting the case. Morality can be objective My opponent uses the example of health to begin. I agree that ingesting poison is objectively unhealthy and I agree that ingesting nutrition is objectively healthy. This distinction can easily be made since we have a clear and objective definitions in which we can determine things as healthy and unhealthy (which isn’t the case for the principles concerning right and wrong behavior). Healthy is defined as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” [1] in a broader sense. By this definition ingesting poison would objectively not be considered as healthy as it does not fulfill the definition of healthy. Differently to the term healthy, morality (which can be split up into right and wrong, in the same way that the term health can be split up into healthy and unhealthy), can not be objectively determined. The term right (which corresponds to the term healthy in this analogy) is defined as “in accordance with what is good, proper, or just” [2] In this definition considering something as objectively right (or not right) becomes harder as the terms are arbitrary. Whilst the fact that poison damages the body can be considered as a truism, the claim that euthanasia is morally right (for example) is subjective. There is no way to objectively put euthanasia into the categories right or wrong because some people would believe that euthanasia is good, proper and just (as the definition of right states) and some people would believe that euthanasia is not good, proper and just. This makes the term subjective (since it’s based on personal feelings / opinions and cannot be factually determined as right or wrong). My opponent attempts to normative ethically define morality. He states that “actions that objectively lead AWAY from threats to wellbeing / homeostasis are MORE MORAL than those that lead toward detriments to well being/homeostasis.” If we accept my opponent’s normative ethical definition here then actions could easily be objectively determined. The problem is that my opponent’s definition of morality is subjective meaning that morality can be objectively determined - only by my opponent’s subjective standards - which he fails to justify sufficiently. A believer in intellectualism would argue that a moral action is an action that promotes and foster knowledge [3][4]. A believe in welfarism would argue that a moral action is an action that economic well being or welfare [3][5]. My opponent’s measurement and system of morality is subjective normative ethics due to the fact that different people have their own different ways of measuring morality. My opponent needs to metaethically justify their framework to show that it is the objectively correct framework for determining whether or not an action is moral because without this justification, the objectivity related element of my opponent’s burden cannot be fulfilled. Conclusion I think my case is clear. My opponent needs metaethics to justify his normative ethical system because without metaethics, normative ethics cannot be justified since normative ethics are, by definition, contingent on the existence of metaethics which my opponent clearly doesn’t argue. Due to the lack of metaethical justification in my opponent’s case, the outcome of the debate at this point is simple. The resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent’s response. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.dictionary.com... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...