Morality is Objective (Tournament Debate)

If we look at definitions A, B, C, and E, they all basically can apply to both subjectivity, and Objectvity, while D works more in with my own point towards subjectivity. If morals do are operative based on one's conscience, than if one does not feel guilt for committing an action, and thinks what they did was right, does that not prove that morality is subjective? Mathematical Loopholes My opponent continuously uses the “2+2=5” argument as correlation from moral objectivity. Let me explain the problem with this. Math represents equations that are made up to be Absolute. There are actually flaws, contradictions, and paradox’s in many math functions, but I’ll give this argument the benefit of the doubt, and show why there is a distinction. While for the most part math is absolute in development of most human functions, Morality isn’t. . http://www.sify.com...; If I try programming a computer, or creating a building schematic, and I mess up on the math equation, something aesthetically will mal-function. An obvious problem can accrue from math. Mis-judging the length of a board from improper math when constructing a base, can result in an ineffective structure. This makes math pretty cut and dry. Math has to be perfect for things to work out. So where is the meta-physical malfunction in morality? There can be one, however it is subjective to societal consequentilism. Point 1: If I kill someone in the Americas, I can spend life in prison. Point 2: If I kill someone in Africa, it’s likely that no one will know, or that few will care, if I do it outside of any centralized government. Point 3: If I am an Aztec, I can sacrifice an innocent person/slave, and society will accept the action. In point one, I show where my opponents idea of what moral objectivity is, and show how it is condoned in an organized society. In point 2, I show how people commit murder in other parts of the world without consequence. In point 3, I show how there is a different standard on morality in different cultures. If Morality is universal, why isn’t there a set standard for all three situations, rather than variations? Where is this god written conduct code, outside of some centralized beliefs? There is no malfunction for the Aztec in Point 3. They simply can kill, and have the best day of their life, with no moral side effects, and people will might even commend them for their actions. Morality is a product of how we are raised, and how we are taught. If we are brought up to believe that a certain thing is right or wrong, than largely that is where our moral principles will be influenced from, though they can deter. I could branch off and make my own moral system, and pursue it. We look at sociopaths, and serial killers, and think that what they are doing is wrong. And they don’t see this, or make the link. But there are hundreds of sociopaths around the world, and all of them can lack this moral link. So are hundreds of people just insane, or are we just not on a different page? This leads me into my distinction. 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? I don’t expect my opponent to answer each of these, but to address the overall point of these examples. How can a universal rule consider things such as, intentions, accidents, greater good, etc? How are these distinctions made? Who/What decides what they are? And how do you know? We have to admit that our morals are our own, and that there is no way to prove that these morals are shared universally. This is why differences in societal/individual belief are important factors to consider, when referring to a universal code of morality. Morality has to be subjective based on differences of conclusive moral reasoning sensibility analyzation. I will gladly say that I believe in my morals, but that I can never prove that they are ultimately the same for everyone else. We should pursue our own morals with the knowledge that others won’t be the same. "Rather than asking if rape and murder are wrong I will now ask why they are wrong. "I cannot speak for all of those who may feel rape is right. I do feel many people who commit this action violating even their own moral standards. But I also believe there are those who have subjective morals about it being right. There were some arguments from the American Vision that seem to justify some of these people's beliefs. "[W]hat right do you have to assert that women ought to be exempted from the blind submission to men’s caprices Nature dictates? [W]e have received from Nature the right indiscriminately to express our wishes to all women . . . we have the right to compel their submission . . . Indeed! has Nature not proven that we have that right, by bestowing upon us the strength needed to bend women to our will. . . . I have incontestable rights to the enjoyment of her; I have the right to force from her this enjoyment, if she refuses me it for whatever the cause may be. " . http://americanvision.org...There is actually a lot more that goes into the argument (I advise that the viewers read from the whole thing. My beliefs, of course contradicting this point, do not matter, but this point goes to show that some can demonstrate morality as Subjective, per justifying beliefs. "The reason society reacted to the holocaust was because it was objectively wrong, even though Hitler had brainwashed enough people to think otherwise. ". http://www.youtube.com...The holocaust was not objectively wrong, but it was wrong to many societies. Hitler wasnt't alone in his movement, he had support, which was what made him successful. However the fact that Nazi'ism still exists, contradicts your point either way. (see video). My opponent has basically admitted that without guilt, morality can be subjective. This ties in with my consequentilism point, concerning the lack of guilt when committing abortions, etc.