Reasonably Morals are Subjective

Thanks Pro.1. RebuttalPro quoted my source twice; in one instance giving the definition of objective morality (which I provided in a previous round) "Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true" and in another instance saying "Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." I agree with both of these quotes (as I rightly ought to, given that it was I who provided the source.) But then Pro goes on to say: "The source itself disagrees with my opponent. It is questionable if my opponent knows and understands what objective morality is as their own source decries the standards which they infer."In no way does either of the quotes from my source given by Pro disagree with my views. I affirm the definition of objective morality (as stated earlier, I provided it) and I also affirm that the idea of murder being wrong can be just as objectively true as a mathematical proof. I fail to see where the issue lies here, as I have no disagreement with the source."The problem here is that there is no evidence of this."The evidence, as I have stated on several occasions throughout this debate, is our sense of morality. In the same way that I can use my sight to tell me that there is a table in front of me, I can use my sense of morality to tell me that torture is wrong. Pro has not refuted this point, instead he/she merely states "it is wrong because it is not sufficient." This kind of objection contains no substance and therefore has no standing."The question was "Why?" and never answered."I don't remember the question "Why?" ever being asked! I would be happy to give my answer. In fact, I think referring to the section directly above this one would provide you with an adequate example of why certain acts are objectively wrong."The opponent shifts burden of proof; it is, or was, their duty to actually provide that moral senses exist."Nice try, Pro. Recall that Pro is the instigator in this debate and has made the assertion that "Morals are Subjective" in the title. Pro is just as responsible to carry the burden of proof for this assertion as I am for defending the idea that morality is objective. It's always fun when opponents attempt to weasel their way out of the burden of proof in the final round."Their objectivity would be relative to their actual strength no different than the objectivity of what we see and feel would be relative to the strength of the physical senses in humans."Once again, the definition of objectivity is distorted by Pro. If something is objective it means that it is factual, independent of human opinion or feelings. Pro says that the strength of our physical senses is limited. This is true, but it does not follow that because our eyesight is limited therefore the things that we see are not real. This idea implied by Pro that limitation equates to nonexistence is false, as shown by our physical senses."I will rest my case by stating two things:A) There has been no evidence provided for any form of moral standard or universal standard by my opponent. There are three unfounded claims (moral senses, accuracy of moral sense, objectivity of moral senses) relating to the issue.B) Opponent's source disagrees with him in the sentence right after that which he quotes stating functionally that no such thing as objective morality exists due to a lack of strong argumentation."Pro has not asked me to provide a moral standard in this debate, but I'm happy to provide one now (though now we have no time to discuss this piece of the conversation.) I think God serves as a perfectly good moral standard, but this is perhaps the topic of a separate debate, as we have run out of time in this one (and I don't want to add something that requires a response from Pro when he/she has no more opportunities to provide a response.) As for the three unfounded claims, I have addressed them multiple times during this debate. Each of the three objections that Pro makes are objections against subjective morality, however much Pro may want to insist on the objections counting in his favor. I won't repeat myself, but anyone who has read the debate can see Pro's misunderstanding in his/her arguments as well as my responses. And as for my source "disagreeing" with me, I invite anyone to follow up on the source and see if there are any conflicts between the views I have presented and the two quotes Pro gave at the beginning of the round. As I stated earlier, one of these quotes was the definition that I provided in an earlier round. Surely Pro does not think that the definition I provided of objective morality is in conflict with my view on objective morality. There was also no conflict between the second quote that Pro gave (I agreed with both quotes) as can be seen at the beginning of my argument for this round. 2. Argument in Favor of Objective MoralityIn round two of the debate, I presented this argument in favor of objective morality:"Our moral senses are comparable to our physical senses (sight, touch, etc.) We have no more reason to distrust our moral senses than we do to distrust our physical senses. For example, if I asked, "What evidence do you have for thinking that the external world really exists? How do you know you aren't just a brain in a vat, with a virtual reality programmed into your brain by some sort of aliens that gives the illusion of reality?" The only way that one could try to explain their belief in the external world would be to say "I can see..., I can touch..., etc." But this, of course, would be arguing in a circle. One cannot use their physical senses in order to prove that their physical senses are reliable. However, it seems to me that we are all perfectly reasonable in trusting our physical senses, as it is a sort of properly basic belief (a belief which needs no grounding in other beliefs.) In the very same way, trusting our moral senses as reliable is a properly basic belief. Any argument against the reliability of our moral senses can be countered with a parallel argument against our physical senses. So in order to truly reject the reliability of your moral senses, one would have to reject the reliability of their physical senses as well. This goes to show that each of us can truly sense between right and wrong, and goes against the idea that morals are mere subjective opinions."Pro has failed to give any sound objections to this argument, and thus the argument stands.3. ConclusionI would like to thank Pro for creating and participating in this debate.I will reiterate the fact that most of the arguments Pro has presented have been arguments against subjective morality. I again invite Pro to take a second look at the meaning of objective morality and reconsider his/her views on the subject, as they appear to be more in conflict with subjective morality. Pro has been unable to provide reasoning for his trusting the reliability of his physical senses while distrusting the reliability of moral senses. Pro has not been able to refute the argument that I gave in favor of objective morality. Pro has failed in carrying his/her share of the burden of proof in this debate, and therefore I think that we can reasonably conclude that morals are not subjective.Sources:http://rationalwiki.org...