Morality is subjective

Come one and come all, Christmas Day will have begun by the time I finish posting this introductory round. In the following debate [1], my opponent agreed in the comments section to debate me on the objectivity/subjectivity of morality. Let's get things straightened out here; === CONTENT === o Definitions o Observations o Arguments o Sources ============= o Definitions Morality- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. [2] Subjective- [3] 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. Objective- [4] 1. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective). 2. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. o Observations 1. A simple "definition" of morality is insufficient to understand the implications of such a controversial term. William H. Prescott succinctly paints the picture as, "Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [5] Furthermore, Immanuel Kant argued that morality lies outside of the human subject. Rather, it is something that is inherently universal; humanity is an end as of itself, and morality is either given by nature or God. Either way, it is definitely NOT subjective. [6] He further attempts to define moral law through his formulation of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is derived from duty; categorical imperatives are intrinsically good, and are the demands of moral law which, of course, should be obeyed if we are to observe moral law. Finally, he accurately points out that moral law is a principle of reason, and it is for that reason precisely that morality is only applicable to rational agents; i.e. humans. 2. I am going to make my position as clear as possible. (A) Different PERCEPTIONS of morality exist. (B) There is only one TRUE morality. (C) On earth, different moral INTERPRETATIONS do not indicate an inconsistency in morality. (D) Finally, we cannot, epistemologically speaking, derive morality, or know exactly what the formulation is for an objective moral code. We can, however, attempt to conform to it as much as possible, and can, as Kant would argue, rationally distinguish between an a moral and an amoral decision (we could not linguistically determine why, but we could rationally justify it). o Arguments I will keep it brief, for my opponent has yet to provide any arguments. Morality CANNOT change. My opponent is going to argue that female circumcision is acceptable in some places and not others; my opponent will argue that abortion is acceptable in some places but not others. This all bears no weight upon my position for the reason that we can clearly observe that there are different interpretations of morality. Not one person can claim, either for or against abortion, that they are conforming to a moral code. They can provide their subjective *understanding* of it, but they cannot look up that, in Chapter 4, section IV.ii of the morality handbook, abortion is a violation of moral conduct. At the end of the day, my opponent's burden is to prove that, factually speaking, morality is not a consistent code. In other words, spatial variation, as well as temporal variation, across a given domain (humanity, or rational agents) can result in a moral gradient. Further, she must prove that this gradient itself is objective. Finally, she must clearly distinguish between morality and moral interpretation. I will likely be referring to Kant in my arguments, for he seems fitting for the case. With that, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and look forward to my opponent's argument. o Sources [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847 [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...