Morality Is Subjective

In my last round I will give a rebuttal to my opponent's case and simultaneously further my own arguments. Rebuttal Law of Nature (A2) My opponent seems to argue we cannot have moral disagreement, unless morality is objective. Here my opponent offers no justification whatsoever to ground morality to be objective. “[…] how could such laws exist in the absence of any mind or sentience in the universe at all? Are moral laws objective in the way that laws of nature are? They do not seem to be, for few would argue that "murder is wrong" existed in some Platonic realm of ideas when galaxies were forming over ten billion years ago and there was no sign life or consciousness anywhere in the universe. The use of the word "law" implies an objective existence of unchanging moral maxims independently of sentience. Yet it appears that there can be nothing objective about so-called "moral laws", because it seems absurd on its face to say that maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions of sentient beings are moral or immoral could exist in the absence of sentience. “ [1] My opponent states that because we disagree over what is right and wrong, this points towards an objective morality. However, I do not see how this is the case. If we all have the same standards, there would be no need to quarrel. But this is exactly what we would expect if morality is subjective! An objective answer to a dispute is not necessary. For example, I can debate, with a friend of mine, whether this piece of music is better than the other. However, I recognize that just because I can ask the question, there might not be an objective answer to it. Common Morality (A2) My opponent seems to argue that moral stability of certain topics make it therefore objective, this is a non-sequitur however. Because there exist some overlap between moral standards, it does not, in any way, imply objectivity. It merely hints at a common ground of which people approve of, which is still subjective. Moreover, I do not, at all, concede my opponent’s point, that morality does not vary over time and location. For example, the Aztecs are known for their human sacrifices and deemed this as a moral. In the middle ages, the stealing of a bread was sentenced by the death penalty. In the near past men would sell other people as their property. Today, in the middle-east, homosexuality is seen as immoral. Again, I submit, this is exactly what we would expect if morality is subjective. My opponent cannot deny these differences and if he wants to explain this, he needs to offer us an objective criterion and justification. The hypothesis that an objective moral standard exists, but some cultures have inferior epistemic access to it is less plausible than the hypothesis that moral disagreement exist because people have different opinions about morality. Animals (A4 and A5) Here, my opponent seems to equate order and structure with morality, but these are not equivalent. He implies that animals ought to behave the way they do. We do not regard animals as moral agents, because animals lack higher consciousness. Therefore, they cannot make moral decisions. For example, when a lions kills his prey, we do not regard his action as immoral. All you have shown here is that we have a need to create a pragmatic system that allows for our survival. But there is no reason to believe that this is an inherently, objective ‘good’. My opponent further states that it would be immoral not to work and gain benefits. He fails to show why this would be objectively immoral, but simply asserts his opinion. Kant (A1) My opponent fails to meet his burden of proof to show this moral system is objective, it seems as if he does not even try. More on Kant in my last point. Objections Well, I was merely ventilating my disappointment. I do not see a contradiction at all. Quite the opposite, I can give my moral opinion, because morality is subjective. If morality would be objective, opinion would be irrelevant. Also, because I believe morality is subjective, it does not follow I therefore have no moral standard. I think, what is important to understand, is that the right to criticize is related to the existence of morality . Why do you need to have the right to express your opinion and act upon it? "Well, because it would be simply immoral to do what you like! " This is a paradox, because if objective morality does not exist , then you no longer have to get that right. For example, without objective morality a potential psychopathic killer can do what he wants , right? But if a murderer can do what he wants, well , then so can you and I. In a world without objective morality it is no problem act upon our personal opinions and so it is no problem to protect ourselves. We might help others to disarm him and possibly throw him in jail. If you think about it, this is roughly the reality. Triangles (A4) We, as people, often make the mistake to provide a process or a function with a label, and anything with a label we soon consider as an entity, which then must exist. I think you should be wary for that trap. For example, when a football player makes a goal from a distance, then we speak of "a nice shot", but of course that shot does not exist in reality. The ball, the player and goal exist, but there is no such thing as ‘the shot'. Evolution (A5) My opponent seems to equate evolution with naturalism, but these are not equivalent. He further seems to insinuate a deeper skepticism towards the validity of the evolutionary theory. I won’t go any further on this subject, but there is overwhelming evidence that substantiate the evolutionary theory. [2] It seems like my opponent is straw manning my position. I did not make a case for naturalism nor rationality, so I’m not sure how this would undermine my argument. Anyhow, my opponent seems to argue that if naturalism is true, then everything is non-rational. The arguments implies that if naturalism is true, no valid reasoning is possible, thus, ‘if P then Q, P, therefore Q’ would not be true. This is obviously false, so if naturalism is true valid reasoning is possible. Furthermore, if reason is indeed naturally evolved, and naturalism would be true, then surely we are justified using reason. Correct Moral Behavior (A3) On the categorical imperative, although it does sometimes work, most of the time it does not. For example, under the categorical imperative there is nothing objectively wrong with adultery, because this maxim does not lead to any contradictions, thus does not violate our rationality. There is no reason given why we ought to obey the categorical imperative, if there is no contradiction involved. Furthermore, it itself leads in some situations to conflict, because it negates consequences. For example, when a murderer forces us to tell where his victims are and we know the right answer, we should tell him the truth, because truth telling is an universal duty under the categorical imperative. Conclusion In conclusion then, you will recall from the second round that I said I was going to defend two basic contentions in this debate. I believe that my opponent has failed to show that my arguments are invalid or unsound, in the end he could not refute my arguments, thus I think I adequately upheld my case. Furthermore, he failed to meet his main burden of proof to show that morality is objective. My opponent did not provide a fundamental system that offers us criteria by which we judge what is right and what is wrong. He further did not offer a method by which we objectively justify these criteria as being in fact good. And at last he failed to provide an epistemological mechanism by which we can assess and determine this objective morality. I think we can conclude that morality is subjective. I urge a vote for pro. Affirmed Sources [1] . http://infidels.org... [2] . http://talkorigins.org...