Morality Is Subjective

Introduction: Let me begin by thanking my opponent for his participation in this debate. I am looking forward to a stimulating and provocative exchange. In this debate I will defend two basic contentions. Contention 1: There are good reasons to think that morality is subjective Contention 2: There are not comparably good reasons to think that morality is objective I will leave it up to my opponent to present his case in favor of objective morality before I respond to it. In my opening remarks I will give 5 arguments why I think the view of subjective morality is true. Arguments: A1: The hiddenness of objective morality There is no evidence that objective morality exists. That is to say, there is no evidence that moral values and duties are valid and binding independent of human opinion. The fact that there exist moral disagreement between cultures, communities and individuals makes it more reasonable to believe that morality is indeed dependent of human opinion, since we lack a non-arbitrary standard to judge by. The existence of different and sometimes opposite views points out that morality is subjective. We can see this when other opinions are lacking, the concept objective morality becomes meaningless. For example, if one individual lived in a social vacuum on his own, he then could create his own standards of what is right and wrong, for there is no one to approve or disapprove of a given action. [1] Furthermore, it also telling that, because of moral disagreements, some people are apparently not aware of this objective morality. Since there exist no way to determine who is correct and who is not, we can therefore deduct that morality is indeed subjective. A2: Morality is variable Every age has its own morality. If objective morality actually exists we would not expect it to change. Furthermore, what is morally good in community A may be wrong in another community B. It is entirely dependent on the values that we choose are good. It is also dependent on the situation. What good is for person A in a given situation may be wrong for person B. Again, it comes down to what one personally regards as right and wrong. This also shows in the consequences of certain actions. One person might feel guilt after he commits a murder, while another may not. Under the view objective morality this makes no sense, for there are no objective criteria to view one more correct than the other. A3: You cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ Objective morality would be merely descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It would tell us how things are, not how they ought to be. It does not come with an obligation to adhere to it, nor is there an objective reason why we should behave according to it. Take the act of stealing for example. Simply stating that one gets harmed during the process does not make it wrong. Brute facts about how the world is, does not tell us how it should be. There is a gap in between, where an evaluation must take place, which is subjective. A4: Morality is man-made Morality is a set of rules to which people ought to live. Without sentient beings and the ability to act, there cannot exist such a thing as morality. A value is not an object; it is a function of the mind. To be objective you have to exist independently of the mind. The word "morality" is a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in our minds. If there is no consciousness, then there is no morality. In a universe filled with stones for example, there is no morality, because conscious agents, that are aware of change, are necessary requirement for morality to exist. If objective morality always naturally existed, then this implies some teleological characteristic to the universe. We live on a little speck of dust in an ever expanding universe vast and ancient. There is no ground to believe that the universe exist with the human species in mind. Since consciousness is a unique feature of the human race and the humans did not always exist, we can deduct that objective morality did not always exist. Humans cannot create objective morality. Therefore, morality is subjective. [2] A5: Morality is evolved Humans are evolved animals. Over the past of the history of our species, we became socially inclined. Rules were made to make a group function well. A pragmatic moral system was developed that enabled us to cooperate and maximized our chance of survival. When we gained higher consciousness, we were able to make moral decisions. The fact that we are able to make moral decisions makes us moral agents. This fact sets us apart from other animals. We don’t regard other animals as moral agents. This is because we other animals are not able to make moral decisions. [3] But because moral decisions are a function of the human mind, it is therefore arbitrary in its very nature. Furthermore, it also tells us that morality is individual learned. First, from our evolved developed dispositions. Secondly, from our parents, our peers and our education, thereby indirectly highly influenced by our culture or religion. This then further shapes our emotions and opinions. [4] Thus, I submit, it is reasonable to argue, that also from an evolutionary perspective, morality is subjective. Conclusion: In conclusion, we have seen 5 arguments to think that subjective morality is the correct and more rational view. Together, I think, these arguments I offered constitute a powerful case that morality is subjective. We have yet to see my opponent’s case. My opponent needs to show that all my arguments are invalid or unsound. Thereafter, he needs to build his own case that shows that morality is objective. If my opponent wants to show that morality is objective, he needs to provide a fundamental system that offers us criteria by which we judge what is right and what is wrong. For example, the utilitarian view that we ought to maximize happiness and reduce suffering. Then he must offer a method by which we objectively justify these criteria as being in fact good, in this case utility. This is because even if the conclusion is objective, the premise might be subjective, which still would be arbitrarily and thus not objective. At last, he must provide an epistemological mechanism by which we can assess and determine this objective morality, for if there exist none we would not be able to become aware and act upon it. And we can therefore render it as practically useless and regard it as nonexistent. Until and unless he does this, I think we can conclude that morality is subjective. Affirmed Sources [1]http://www.rationality.net... [2] http://infidels.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [4] http://philosophynow.org...