The subject of morality is subjective to society

True. Who said I needed to bring up new ones when the previous ones I have work just fine, as they have not successfully fallen yet? My arguments still stand, And my argument still supports the topic. My opponent has made no new arguments either, however, there was no need for me mentioning that. (? ) INTRO What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike" Quote by Alfred North Whitehead. Please dis-regard my opponents spheal about subjective consensus, seeing as he has submitted to my dictionary definitions defining the debate as subjective rather than objective. Also it is impossible for him to back the statement "even if we have a majority that has a moral opinion, that opinion can still be objectively wrong even if a group subjectively agrees to it. " As long as there is another group (or society) who believe in another standard, it dis-proves even the objective standard from being the more moral route. MORAL RELATIVISM Moral relativism is quite a supporting argument in my favor still. Moral understanding is a variable when it comes into a subjective society or individual. Truth claims? That's like me saying I don't believe in abortion because its immoral. There's my truth claim. You see the fallacy in trying to name a "truth" claim in a debate about morality? And how is it possible to definitively conclude anything about any matter of opinion? I enjoy the aspect of moral relativity, however, in this case it wouldn't be the best value to go by in negation to subjective morality. " to have a moral code based on what society believes doesn't necessarily mean that the moral code is true" Of course not. Never said nor implied that once in the entire debate, and gee, if I had, I would be contradicting everything I have said. That doesn't imply that it is objective in the slightest aspect though. The same would apply to both a subjective an objective analysis, yet still doesn't change the fact that we need a subjective ordeal if we are going to take a societal approach. "objective and whatever laws we have in society are recognitions of morality that aim to reflect it in practical applications. " Still subjective to OUR society because other societies have very different laws from us. How is that objective? DEFINITIONS My opponent had a problem with definitions sourced from the dictionary itself, as well as dictionary. com. I'm sure we all have a basic understanding of what morality is, and if my opponent wanted to offer a relative definition the offer was made. However that doesn't propose changing meaning to morality in which he implies. I'm going to leave the definitions arguments with the fact we all know what morality is, and the definition is not the issue at hand as is whether or not it is subjective to society or not. BACK TO MORAL RELATIVITY " While America believes that population reduction is wrong (because it's basically the intent to mass murder) - China believe it's right. So where are we left with this? That morality is subjective. " I guess my point has been understood. Thankyou. You are right when you say morality asks the question of what we ought to do. The big question however, is what's the answer? Or is there an answer? That is the subject matter of this entire debate. Because the answer relies on the beliefs of the individuals belonging to each society. "Sure, China is trying to fix their population problem by promoting mass genocide of their citizens. Is that the right thing to do? Certainly not as it goes against some of the most fundamental moral principles that man has come to know throughout civilization etc. " Fallacy. Is it the right thing to do? In yours and my belief system, no. In china's belief system, yes. Now here's the interesting part. The fundamental moral principles that man has come to know throughout civilization? This is extremely interesting that this exists because as far as I know Societies around the world have acted differently from the beginning of time. Now that assertion would only be safe to say about a certain one society, let's say, America. Let's face it. There are no "fundamental" principles. 'Morality is delusional cowardice' I loved this part. If the world were all jolly and there were never moral disputes, there would be no point to neither a subjective nor objective morality. While your statement is true, you have only proved the obvious, and it holds no weight as far as being an argument in this debate. STANFORD QUOTE The stanford quote was not so random. It better defined your moral relativity, however, also proved that societal standards of morality are subjective. If you agree that the website had a proper understanding or moral relativism, then how can you say the argument made from your own mis-guided use of the word, were mere assertions? You've rebutted it before? How so? I have yet to see the argument produced showing how moral relativity is objective based on the quote defining the word itself. IMMANUEL KANT ARGUMENT I agree with you, that set reasons for stealing a wallet are "BS". Because, that is my belief system of morality. Try telling the thief who used the money to support his starving family, or used it for whatever reason he saw fit that it was wrong, if his belief system told him it was right. I'm sure he wouldn't give a care to the "do what you want done to yourself" logic if according to his moral he benefited from the proceedings and without moral consequence. Also I have not conceded to any point by saying I have an obvious reaction to immorality. Me having an obvious reaction, is way off topics in regards to those whose beliefs would subtract that "obvious re-action" given that their moral standards are different. So once again. Al Quida members are told they are rewarded in heaven for acts of terror on other humans. Their morals standards have been untarnished, and this is also a point you have dropped. SOCIETAL DIFFERENCES "A killer isn't going to recognize that what he's doing is immoral or wrong" Which again serves the question if what he is doing is really wrong. Remember what this debate is about? In our society, he is evil. I could repeat he same thing over and over again using different words, like it seems I have been, however, it's not going to change the fact that there is a society that agrees with the serial killer thus making it impossible for us to say he is wrong and us that as fact, we will only ever be able to say that as our belief. " I think it's safe to say that the world has recognized clearly that it's objectively immoral for anything like this to ever happen again" (referring to German genocide) This is because they lost the war, and there society was taken over by societies with beliefs that genocide was bad. Had society continued to be dictated by those who had particular likings toward genocide, Societal tendencies in Germany would continue. Still does not deter the fact that that was a societal belief, and it is still impossible to say it's immoral. EXTREME SKEPTICISM Extreme Skepticism, or whatever, call it what you want. It still directly applies to morality. Sure if you want to go down that road, yes this debate can be a matter of pure perception as well. If the voters have a preference for either of our sides, then their societal beliefs match ours. CONCLUSION This has been a very controversial and intriguing debate, but in the end, I believe that I have proved that the only way morality can ever be a factor is if we strictly limit it to societal beliefs and perceptions. We can never say someone's outlook on morality is in-correct because it is different then our own perception. Both my opponent and I have put a considerable amount of time into this debate, and hope that you, the readers enjoy it.