Morality is determined by the individual

The First subject I would like to address is that my esteemed opponent claims that I have a fallacy within my argument. Then I will move on to illogical processes within his own. The fallacy he claims that I have displayed is the fallacy of hasty conclusion. "Use relevant but insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion about a particular person, place, thing, etc." [1] "Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence — essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables" [2] Now my opponent claims this is where my fallacy lies: "To sum up the base of your whole argument against either objection I would have to put it this way "not everybody listens to the standards of morality ergo it comes from themselves, they determine it"" CR2 I believe this to be a straw man argument [3] "A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." [3] So in summary my opponent has missed interpreted my argument. I never stated anywhere that individuals do not adhere to the same moral system thus morality is not the same instead this is what I have stated: "Since individuals may choose to accept certain morals and moral systems, morality is dictated by each separate individual for themselves." Because we have free will, we may choose. Because we have choice we may choose ideas. Because we can choose ideas we can choose different ideas or perceptions of morality. I never stated that there is a constant standard of morality and individuals are not adhering to it. I HAVE NOT REACHED THE FALLACY OF HASTY CONCLUSION since I have not looked over any evidence. My opponent offered no evidence or new variable so the fallacy of hasty conclusion drops. Revealing that my opponent has only misinterpreted my argument and wishes to persuade you the same. "Objection 1: facts are not dependant on us" CR2 I concur facts are objective. Objective-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: dictionary.com Meaning that regardless of what one believes existence exists. Regardless of your perception or feelings. Thus this makes reality and fact objective (Or not reliant upon us) HOWEVER Morality does not pertain to existence. MORALITY is not a fact. ( What I mean by this is that other than morality existing there are no facts about it. All idea based off are just perceptions.) Since 1. For morality to be fact it would have to be constant or a single morality agreed on by everyone that would be un refuted. 2. Morality is a part of philosophy (I believe this is evident in this round since philosophy has a habit of trying to determine morality) "The philosopher...is committed what is left when we have taken away what has been defiantly established ... He is the Lord of Uncleared ground,-"[4] the whole quote is in the comments. The above statement only proves that philosophy is only to answered un-answered questions. Or questions that do not have an answer so far. Later on in the book the author states that once an answer has been found that question and answer is thrown into a particular science (Other than philosophy.) So since Philosophy is meant for questions without immediate answers and morality is within Philosophy. morality does not have an immediate answer, so it is not a fact. However morality exists so there is not a set standard of morality meaning individuals decide for themselves on what morality is. Even if one does not buy this logic Morality is an Idea that holds no link to the physical existence so it is a "Literal idea" meaning people can have different interpretations of this idea and only be wrong in the eyes of someone with a different perception of said idea. "Consider this analogy. I say our blood is made up of thousands of tiny living cells. You disagree and say they are made up of grape juice. We cant come to agreement on this issue so ergo our blood is determined by the individual. Yours blood is made up of grapes and mine is of cells." CR2 This analogy is another "strawman" argument because he is trying to persuade you that I have no perception of reality and truth. The analogy he presents can be tested and has an absolute truth when Morality cannot be tested and is not absolute (Other than it exists) my rebuttal regardless: He is assuming that morality is constant and can be "factually tested" Morality cannot. Morality is an idea and conjectures based of ideas are "THEORIES" Theories are supposed answers that have no proof. (When they attain proof they are laws) So thus Morality has no facts about it (Other than the fact it exists) "If they were than they would not be facts they would be unreal illusions" Again he is confusing that morality and facts. Morality is not constant it is up to perception. "It is an illusion thus you do not as an individual truly determine morality because A: you cant determine a non-existent thing, .. B: your ‘system' is arguable determined by your situation because it is that situation that factors into why you call what's right "right" and what's wrong "wrong". "I will go to jail if I don't lie so lying is ‘okay' right now"." A. Morality exists my opponent has to accept this, since, to figure out if its determined by individual it must exist first. Also he earlier implies that people may take morality and make it mean anything according to this debate it has to be a system of right or wrong B. No. I myself have pre thought about what morals I accept. I will not break those regardless of my situation. Hindus will never eat meat. That is their morality Also by stating situation dictates morality you are negating free will which I have proven is self evident. "Objection 2: We don't follow our own individual systems" I never said "we do not follow our own systems" but my opponent apparently accepts this Actions speak louder than words. If people find their own life as moral then they will live. And do actions to achieve "Life" such as eating and self defense. So since there are 7 billion people living they must value life and are not changing their morality in this subject. But since we have free will we may decide on suicide In which one decides their life is not moral thus that moral choice is determined by the individual. IF WE do not follow our system that means we are changing it by choice and since choice exists. Morality is determined by the individual. "Your own position this debate at the very least admitted that "I determine my morality"ï¿½ so when I say lying is bad it really is for me according to you and yet I lie." Con may lie in certain conditions. That is Cons morality. Con chose that. I may think that evil or wrong because of my morality. But regardless we are individuals and we both made choices in morality so we determined morality in our own individual ways. "Its not because of any change in system I just lack the discipline to follow through with what is right always." So con finds it "right" to not always go through moral deliberation. Since con acts this way he find it "Right" or correct since otherwise why else would he act this way. And since morality is a system of right and wrong he finds it moral to not go through deliberation. And he still chose that. All of my arguments stem from free will and his objections have done nothing to brake this link. [1] http://online.santarosa.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Introduction to philosophy by George Stuart Fullerton pg 9