The subject of morality is subjective to society

Haha, silly mistake, but let's go on with the debate. Unfortunately, much of my opponents statement was riddled with definitions and there were no new arguments made. However, I will continue to address his remarks in full. ===== INTRO ===== I agree with my opponents definition, I don't think dictionaries would screw up objective/subjectivity. Though I'd like to note that there is the possibility of a subjective consensus. What is a subjective consensus? When there is a multiple number of people who agree on their opinions. Ultimately, this understanding is subjective because it's based on the subjects within the group. This is relevant to the debate because 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. My opponent has a misunderstanding of moral relativism. While the above blurb should clear it up, I'd like to further explain. Moral relativism means the moral understanding of whether an action or human conduct is good or bad is completely subjective to the person or to the group of people. Please note, people can have opinions, but we have to recognize that when we talk about morality we are making judgments and therefore truth claims. Truth claims are objective claims to reality - to definitively conclude something about some matter. It therefore follows, as my opponent concedes here : "in all aspects of the definition of subjective, we find relative cause for it being subjective to society" - that to have a moral code based on what society believes doesn't necessarily mean that the moral code is true. This lies in the fact that morality is inherently objective and whatever laws we have in society are recognitions of morality that aim to reflect it in practical applications. ================= Definitions Response ================= I think it was pretty odd of my opponent to recognize the fallacy in his definitions but then to make no effort to correct himself as it was OK for the debate. This is an example of poor conduct on his part. What I would like to say is that to define morality is to defeat the purpose of this debate, because this entire debate hinges on the definition of morality. I can certainly say: Morality/Ethics is the set of objective truth principles regarding the judgment of the goodness or badness within human action or conduct. But my opponent will certainly object to the "objectivity" of morality - this is the point of the debate. Moving on. ======== Rebuilding ======== 1) Moral relativism My opponent gave us a very straightforward example that echoes pretty much the exact same arguments as in the previous round. We all face the same problems, but we all have our own little ways of fixing them. 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 will repeat myself when I say that we should differentiate between facts and oughts. Morality is not a descriptive term, it's a prescriptive statement. Morality asks the question of what we ought to do. The answer is based upon a set of objective moral principles. 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. I like how my opponent says "hot" issue of morality. It seems as though, whenever we have a firm understanding on some of the most essential issues in our society, like is it good to be free - there is no problem. In fact, many moral relativist are proponents of relativism because it supports freedom. However, when things get grey and disputed, like in issues of abortion, euthanasia, etc. Morality all of a sudden becomes subjective, it becomes of an opinion of an individual or group of individual. To this I remark that subjectivism is a form of delusional cowardice. 2) Random stanford quote and then proceeding assertions I'm glad that at least the Philosophy website hosted by Stanford EDU has a proper understanding of moral relativism. However, to try and rebut my arguments, my opponent continued to do nothing but make bare assertions. He has not made an argument for why moral arguments are descriptive but instead points to conflicts in actions and says that because there are conflicts in the way we behave, there is no proper way to behave. This isn't an argument, it's just an assertion I've rebutted before, for which no rebuilding has been made. Also, about wallet stealing - I think I can give a very clear argument against this from Immanuel Kant. It's basically a definition of the golden rule in regards to morality. If you want an example of a very firm objective principle in regards to right and wrong it goes like this, "do what you would have had done to yourself. " If you go pocketing wallets all day, "your set reasons" are BS. You can give whatever rationalizations you want for stealing, or killing, or lying, but at the end of the day there are a set of objective principles by which we recognize that these are things that you did wrong. If you think that pocketing wallets is good, then certainly you'd have no problems with someone stealing wallets from you. Or punching you in the face for that matter - but all of a sudden we get, "I will probably feel an obvious reaction, to immorality". My opponent has conceded the point. ======== Rebuttals ======== Societal differences My opponent keeps making the same point over and over again. He refuses to acknowledge objective judgement in the immorality of the act, things that we can understand very clearly. Of course the Germans would think they're right because they're the ones doing what they are doing. A killer isn't going to recognize that what he's doing is immoral or wrong. An even more primitive example is that when you make mistakes on a math test you aren't going to realize those mistakes until after the fact. And so I say, after having decades to reflect on the abhorrant genocide of the Jewish people by the Germans, 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. Can it still happen? Of course - genocides have happened a number of times in our history - does that mean they are morally good? Absolutely not. Belief and skepticism In the comments section of this debate, my opponent posted this part of his argument, Our recognition of any and all aspects sprouts from our beleifs. If I believe a red wine glass is red, then in my perception its red! If you believe the red wine glass is blue, then in your perception that red wine glass is blue! However what if your society you grew up in raised you to believe that the color red is really blue? How can I say that for you that glass is not blue? " - However, I'm not sure how to respond to extreme skepticism. What do I mean by extreme skepticism? Well by his logic, if everything is just a matter of perception, then the voters can perceive that the words that we are typing can mean anything - and further by that logic, the resolution can mean anything because it's just our perception. Only when we make an appeal to objectivity and understand that perception and speech is a recognition of objective principles rather than subjective creations of our own minds - only then can we truly communicate. ========= Conclusions ========= For this round, I've made no additional arguments but instead took the chance to carefully examine everything my opponent has posted. Opps case has digressed from mere assertions to a profound skepticism while mine still stan