Objective Moral Judgements can be made in Moral Nihilism

Introduction Thank you Envisage for instigating this debate. I hope it leads to a good intellectual discussion and helps us to improve as debaters. I do not find anything wrong with the philosophy Envisage puts forth in of itself, but it would seem Envisage misses the mark in terms of applying this philosophy to the resolution. For this reason, my arguments may seem repetitive, but I find this repetition necessary in order to get the point fully across. Moral Facts vs. Objective Moral Facts My opponent must prove that moral nihilism can yield objective moral facts. The problem with my opponent’s entire argument is his confusion of moral facts versus objective moral facts. Moral facts can be true, but subjective. For example, the statement, “I like apples” is a true statement but may only be true in regard to my individual taste. Objective moral facts however cannot be based on the individual for then the moral fact would not be unbiased as defined, but rather wholly within bias. This flaw is given light particularly in his use of moral egoism. Moral egoism is centered entirely on the individual and their self interest and thus, their personal bias. P1. Objective moral facts are unbiased. P2. Moral egoism, which focuses on the self interest of the individual, is wholly within bias. C1. Therefore moral egoism cannot yield objective moral facts. Defense of Premise 1 This premise is justified by Pro’s definition of ‘objective’ given in round 1. Objective - "A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of asentient subject". Or 'impartial'. Defense of Premise 2 In moral egoism, what is moral or immoral is determined by whether or not actions fulfill the self interest of the individual. This means that actions have no inherent moral value in of themselves, but are given moral value by the individual committing the action. This of course means that morality is based on the bias of the individual committing the action, and thus is not objective since in order to be objective it must be free from bias. Conclusion The conclusion follows the premises. P1. A is B. P2. C contradicts B. C1. Therefore A is not C. On Pro’s Analogy Pro’s analogies rely on the concept of an individual or society giving value to morality. For example, Pro’s analogy on money follows that money is only valuable because society gives money value. This can then be compared to morality. Morality is only given value because society gives it value. He then concludes that from this giving of value, objective statements can be made. This is very flawed, for perhaps true statements can be made, but it does not follow that objective statements can be made. Pro’s major flaw is that he uses ‘true’ and ‘objective’ interchangeably. For something to be objective it must exist outside of bias. The same does not necessarily apply to truth. It is true that I think apples are tasty. However, it is not an objective truth that apples are tasty since whether or not an apple is tasty is reliant on the bias of the individual tasting the apple. Pro states, “What is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are answers yielded from a subjective assessment of the sentient beings involved and beings that perceive said actions.” This concept of morality relies on the individual giving value to it, and it therefore cannot be objective since the value of morality relies on the bias of the individual. Flaws in Moral Egoism in Regard to the Resolution In moral egoism, there is either such a thing as subjective self interest or objective self interest. If my opponent appeals to a subjective self interest, or an interest based upon the individual which may vary among individuals, then objective moral judgments are impossible since the morality of any given action relies wholly on the bias of the individual committing the action. If my opponent appeals to an ultimate, objective self interest, then all moral judgments must be based on that objective self interest and therefore morality would be objective, having intrinsic value in relation to what is in the ultimate self interest of all people. Now to clarify on this, an objective self interest would have to be one that applies to all people, and is not subjective based on the individual. Something like ‘happiness’ would not be an objective self interest since although the general principle may apply to all people, its realization may differ among each individual. Of course if we were dealing with objective self interest, then we would no longer be dealing with moral nihilism since actions would have intrinsic value in regards to the ultimate self interest. Therefore, my opponent must be referring to subjective self interest, which as already shown, fails in context of the resolution since all actions must be inherently biased. Application of Subjective Egoism According to moral egoism, what advances one’s self interest is what is moral. It is therefore conceivable that in situation A, agent B could rape agent C, and the situation as a whole would be moral since the situation acts within agent B’s self interest. However, in situation A, agent B could rape agent C, and the situation as a whole would be immoral because it acts against the self interest of agent C. Here there exists a contradiction, and certainly a flaw in the concept of objective moral facts. For in order for this situation to either be objectively moral or immoral, it must not be based on the individuals affected by the situation, but be based on unbiased principles. The morality of the situation is based entirely on the individuals within the situation, for according to agent B the action was morally sound, but according to agent C the action was immoral. If the situation were based on objective moral facts, then the situation as a whole would either be moral or immoral, but according to moral egoism the situation could be both moral and immoral depending on the agent in the situation. Therefore, this situation is devoid of objective moral judgment and moral egoism fails to yield objective moral facts. It is conceivable that my opponent may respond that raping agent C would not be in the self interest of agent B since agent B may very well go to jail for it. Therefore, the situation as a whole would be immoral. However, this would only provide a moral fact and not an objective moral fact because it would still rely on agent B not wanting to be sent to jail. All conceivable moral facts would be reliant on the bias of the individuals within the situation, since the individual’s self interest is the basis of morality. Conclusion The main point in my arguments was to distinguish moral facts from objective moral facts. Although Pro has certainly established a basis for proving moral facts, he has failed to establish a basis for proving that moral nihilism can yield objective moral facts. It is crucial that Pro prove that moral nihilism can yield objective moral facts, and not just moral facts. Over to you Pro.