Morality is Objective (Tournament Debate)

SemanticsIn my opponents last round he made a comment referring to the use of semantics. I would like to clear this up, as I feel this accusation is unfair. First off, nothing in my argument was a play or twist on words, or definition. All I said was that the definition of Morality is open to interpretation, and can be manipulated into objectivity and subjectivity regardless. Basically there is literally nothing accomplished from defining morality. I can take any one of the definitions provided by my opponent and apply it to subjective morality, just as he could try to apply it to objective morality. We need to focus on the philosophy of the aspect of morality, as there is no defined principal of morality. Consequentilism/LoopholesNext, I would like to address my opponent’s comment addressing the loopholes in consequentilism. Loopholes in consequentilism, is exactly my point however. You’ll notice that my arguments were in response to your bit about “feeling guilty for committing rape”. The loophole with consequentilism is that by assuming a person feels guilt, they are violating morality. Which means, by my opponents own standards, if a person doesn’t feel guilt, or feel that there is nothing wrong with their action, than that person hasn’t acted immorally. I can say that what the person did was wrong, but if he thinks what he is doing is okay, or even good, than why is my morality objective over his? How can anyone possibly determine this? Again for a deeper look on understanding moral principal arguments, you can read the link I provided in the last round regarding this issue (purpose being to prove that this isn’t always a mindless hateful action). The point about consequentilism, isn’t what I am trying to advocate, and I want to stress that this point of contention was made directly as a response to my opponents consistent emotional appeals. Several times he will state things that appeals to our centralized morals, and applying guilt to these circumstances. He uses incidents that many people agree is wrong such as rape and murder, which is directly what the consequentilism point was directed at. However, notice how my opponent has ignored the more “controversial issues”, that I continuously try to get him to notice throughout this debate. You will notice that my opponent is only taking my arguments at face value when he analyzes my arguments as something as simple as “Societies dis-agree, thus no objective morality can exist. ” This is essentially the summary of it. But there are so many important questions that need to be answered within this context before we can ever justify an objective morality. We have so many issues even within your own realm of morality that has black and white context. I am talking about things like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Gun Rights, Border Control, etc. Things that can’t possibly be determined as universal even within our own society. How can we determine that an Objective morality properly takes a stance on all these issues? Which side does the objective stance take? And the best question of all is how in the heck could you know that? This leads me to my conclusion. Missed points? My opponent says I missed his points about non-contradiction. This is false however. In my last round I pointed out how the fallacy in what he is saying doesn't make a difference to what I have been addressing this whole time. I will clearly point out the issue: When two people’s personal morality come in conflict, who determines who is right? The answer to your question is: Philosophically, no one. Determining who is right can only be judged by perspective societies. In America someone can get a completely different result in a trial, than perhaps, that of Africa. Societies will deem who is right according to their subjective moral beliefs. However to answer your question philosophically, would mean that both individuals are correct. Their subjective morals and "Intentions" were both good, meaning that morality is subjective. There is no code or law that can define an objective moral law; Objectivity, doesn't an cannot exist. Even you have failed to give an example of what one would look like. I don't think I understand where you are trying to go with the "judge forcing his morals on others. " Of course he is! Just because a Judge forces his opinion on something, doesn't mean he is right or wrong. His action was subjective, as you pointed out. If a person was convicted or punished, he is a victim of circumstances. His moral subjectivity may have been violated, but that doesn't make moral subjectivity any less real, so I am not sure where exactly you were going with this point. If the one being punished had good intentions, than by your standards, morality is subjective. CONCLUSION Subjective morality doesn’t require a method of its approval. Those who feel there is no showing doctrine of conduct following objective morality, should automatically assume Subjectivity. Most Objectivists usually will have a written code in which they feel is the standard. For example, many Christians will believe that the biblical moral code (IE 10 commandments, etc). While there are many arguments that can go into dis-proving this, it is still a better approach at objectivity than the one my opponent has given in this debate. Why? Because in this debate, we haven’t established what an objective morality is. We have no reason to assume under my opponent’s philosophy that an objective morality can even exist, because we don’t know what it is. If we can’t rely on consequentilism to tell us due to loopholes as my opponent himself stated, and we don’t have anything to code out the bigger split issues, than all we have to go on, is that apparently rape and murder are immoral in my opponent’s objective morality. If this isn’t proof that morality has to be Subjective than I don’t know what is. My opponent has said he doesn’t know whether morality is objective or subjective, but that he tends to believe in objective morality, for his own reasons. I can understand that, because this is a discussion on philosophy, essentially a subject that is impossible to prove through human methods. In a way, I would have to agree, that I can never truly know if there is an objective morality. But here is the question: Why should I even consider the principal of an objective morality? It works the same with the concept of deities, aliens, myths, etc. Sure these things “could” exist, but belief in them will only always be a contention of personal belief, rather than an automatic assumption, as atheism/ agnosticism is, or more relevant, moral subjectivity. So to end this debate, I would like to quote my opponent: It is the intention that makes an action immoral. This my friends, is my opponents own words telling us Subjective Morality exists. As long as someone has the intention of good in their actions, their morals can be right just as equally as someone who opposes them. This versatile statement is a living demonstration that differences of belief breaks down to individuals intention, and what they believe is moral/immoral.