Morality is Indirectly Objective

Thank you for your response and welocme to the fourth installment of our debate. >> REBUTTALS << 1. Here’s the problem with that, and it stems back to the Objectivity problem, there is no purity in logic with humans. Humans can be irrational beings and this contention relies on humans being purely logical to see through to the conclusion of morality being indirectly objective. Well, I would like to direct your attention to logical fallacies. [1] These fallacies exist because, within argumentation, humans may rely on faulty reasoning or assumptions which do not further their thinking. Almost all people have been accused of a fallacy during debate – I myself have committed reduction absurdums quite a bit. The point is, assuming that humans can be purely logical is quite a stretch since all evaluations are affected by emotions, bias, personal philosophy and preconceptions. 2. Yes, this is true, Mathematics and even science to an extent are seen as Objective truths. But this is because they are free from personal evaluations – a person who is 6 ft. will be 6 ft. to everybody. But morality cannot be tested like height since it is in a completely different arena, it is epistemic almost. To put forth the idea that morality is logical would assume that its characteristics rely on the Laws of Logic. Can you prove that? We shall see in contention 3d… Wrong again, sir. I was well within my ability and duty to provide a definition for objective. And since you negated the definition by continuing to assert that humans create morality, that is a huge blow to your argument. I am being honest here – that definition provided is correct and coherent. Many philosophers work off of that same definition and I even provided another source. Obviously your argument does not support the idea that morality is objective. This “product” of human reasoning cannot be purely logical though or objective though which is what your resolution is predicated on. For that reason, your argument is not valid. 2a. I’m unsure as to why my opponent is under the assumption that he is exempt from providing sources for his line of thinking. This is standard procedure. Now, I’m not calling for evidence in the sense of conclusive studies which prove his point. But I’m looking for books, articles, journals, etc. which expound on his points and lend credibility to his argument. Otherwise he is merely stating contentions and assuming that I will believe them. If we did it that way, this wouldn’t be a debate. If he wanted the free sharing of ideas than the forums would have been better for this but instead he chose formal debate. They have the “sources” section for a reason. 2b. I’ve already shown why morality cannot be compared to mathematics in objectivity. It does not rely on any of the axioms of logic so my opponent has yet to prove this contention as well. 3a. Where have I insulted you? If I seem harsh, I apologize. It is merely frustrating that I’m not being understood about evidence. But let’s move forward. I’ve repeated the need for proof even in philosophical discussions so I will not repeat myself again. 3b. Okay, let us assume that the mind exists. Now, the existence of the mind in no way supports for the truth of morality through objective means. Even if morality was to exist within the mind, you must still provide sufficient evidence that it holds truth for your resolution to be affirmed. 3c. See 2 and 2b. 3d. I have brought no new arguments and have merely questioned which axioms your morals rely on if you assert that they are formed through logic. This is simply for the basis of you expounding on your contentions so I can understand them properly. ii. My questioning about the logical basis of morality is the best place to start if you are looking for criticisms. Also the definition of objectivity and the point that even if it were to exist in the mind, that does not prove the truth-value needed to affirm your resolution. None of these have been addressed. Other than that, I am stuck repeating the need for sources for any credibility or validity in your argument. I have apologized for my brash behavior if you are insulted and will vote against myself for conduct. >> CONCLUSION << Obviously this debate has not gone the way either of us has intended. I’m now left waiting for his closing remarks with a sense of sadness. I had not realized that the provision of sources was against his idea of debate but such a system is supported by Debate.org which is why there is a “sources” section. This is not a tactic to belittle or shift focus away from the debate. It is to expound on his points, to provide me with further reading for better analysis and debate, to educate the readers on points which elude them, to inform those not philosophically educated and to lend credibility to the debate. I hope my opponent can answer what axioms morality relies on, how humans can be “logically pure” and where does the “truth-value” of these morals come from. Until then, this resolution is not affirmed. I apologize again for my insults, I was not aware that I was being rude. Resolution Negated. Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://www.csun.edu...