Morality is an Idea

I believe that this issue is an important one to clarify and that it clearly deserves the full treatment that a 3 round debate can grant it. I am for the resolution that morality is an idea. One can scour the entire universe, smash apart all its atoms and model the movement of all the celestial bodies within the bowels of a quantum computer the size of the sun and one will not find one ounce of morality. Morality does not exist any more than beauty or love or wonder exist. They exist within the depths of the human mind alongside angels, demons, and leprechauns. Morality is a human phenomenon, not a physical one. The life-giving sun has no more of a concept of morality than a rockslide. I contend that by default, nothing should be assumed to exist until proof is given. Because of this, I will spend the remainder of my round refuting my opponent's points, since it is up to him to prove that morality does exist as more than an idea. The crux of the first argument of my opponent's argument is the following statement: >When discussing the nature of morality, it's important that it be taken seriously. Every other statement within the first two paragraphs of the body of his argument depends on this statement. The fact that morality must be taken seriously does not grant it existence, making his point irrelevant to this debate. If morality is something other than a mere idea or concept, then morality has existence, whether physical or metaphysical. Mere necessity, however, is insufficient proof of something's existence. Humans need food, and because they need food, food is important that they have it. One would have to be insane, however, to say that the world's starving billions have food simply because it is important that they have it. Yes, it is important that morality be taken seriously, but it does not by any means imply that morality has existence outside of the human mind. >Moral distinction is the act of assessing the moral value of an action. Moral obligation is the act of holding another person or group of people to a specific moral standard. How is your definition of moral obligation anything other than a physical act, one that is exercised in accordance with an idea? >As soon as one person or group obligates another person or group to adhere to their moral distinctions, they are taking an absolute, objective moral position. No, they are merely attempting to pressure another person or group into conforming with their demands. In many ways, this is no different than, for example, exacting a monetary tribute, and indeed, many of our laws are enforced by doing just that. What do you mean by "subjective" morality? Do you mean a relativistic morality that is selectively applicable? Ideas can very easily function as "objective" moralities, and the ideas do not have to be good ones. A whimsical insistence that everyone must wear purple hats on April 13 of every year ending in 0 is every bit as objective and universal as Kant's categorical imperative if one is to take a lack of relativism to be the definition of objectivity. >The only way to be true to the notion that morality is an idea is to remain wholly within the realm of moral distinction and avoid moral obligation altogether. Are you saying that morality can't be an idea because people force others to act in accordance with it? This would imply that people can't act on ideas. This is preposterous, and I would suggest that you reconsider such statements. >If you truly believe morality to be subjective, then you must also believe by rational necessity that might makes right. If morality is an idea conceived and held subjectively, then it is defined by an individual's thoughts and feelings and not by might. Individual thoughts and feelings are not wholly subordinate to physical might. It is, in fact, very difficult to deliberately mold people's thoughts and feelings solely through the use of might. >This view of morality extends from my worldview and my belief in a transcendent, unchanging God. How do you escape the idea that might makes right if your "universal" morality is guaranteed by the mightiest being in the universe? This may, in fact, push you much further into the trap. The preceding paragraphs are more or less irrelevant, however. My opponent succeeded merely in proving that to treat morality lightly is disastrous, not that morality is more than a name for a class of ideas. I look forward to whatever arguments he wishes to bring to this debate in the future.