azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I haven't in any conversation with you.Right. So you never said time exist out of perception? Space/time? My apologies. I let my imagination get the best of me.The ice age was natural (and "unnecessarily" detrimental or negative to some species). The subsequent thaw was natural. When temperatures change like this, species will move, when they do, some will become an invasive species. Invasive species tend to have an advantage as there is little or no predation in the new territory. Is this natural?I am not clear on the point you are trying to make. Of course those said events are natural. Nothing intentionally caused them (presumably). The problem is that unnecessarily detrimental effects being commenced now, is not natural. It has a causation that is consciously aware of the destruction it is causing. Consciously aware of what is natural and what isn't. So, yes, the destruction being caused by a natural occurrence (humans) is unnatural. (I.e. oil should not be in the ocean it should be in the ground, but something is intentionally[consciously] placing it there.) You have let your emotions on the subject take you so far off from my question that you can't seem to answer it.You have let your viewing, of a previous argument with an entirely different person, impose on my intentions. So stop being a follower/copycat, and focus on my intentions. This is not emotional, so I will politely ask you to change your perspective, please. I made that statement because I was under the impression that you were implying: 'because (from my assertion) the detrimental effects are being caused by something natural (humans), then one could say that these effects are natural' due to the fact that the causation is natural. Therefore, is such was the case, humans (a natural cause) polluting anything would be naturally done because is was done by a natural cause. This is why I clearly stated: "to my understanding" to not make an objective assumption. Your hypocrisy is a tad bit amusing though.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Right. So you never said time exist out of perception? Space/time? My apologies. I let my imagination get the best of me.You seem to read too much into some statements and not enough into others. What I stated just a couple posts ago was that concepts help us understand what we observe. Concepts aren't the thing outside of perception, but the observed is there regardless of perception. I am not clear on the point you are trying to make. It was a question, not a point. Furthermore, it wasn't about climate change, that was a premise to the hypothetical question, which you still haven't really gotten around to. On a side note, oil spills through fissures on the ocean floor all the time.You have let your viewing, of a previous argument with an entirely different person, impose on my intentions.Perhaps you can explain to me how my viewing of something can impose anything on anyone. I'm not really sure what it is you think I have viewed, but my analysis of your response as "emotional" was something I managed to come up with all by my self. Neither the emotion nor the assertion are uncommon on this site.Your hypocrisy is a tad bit amusing though.And I am sure quite apparent to any observer. Since you never directly answered the hypothetical, but instead respond to everything (real and imagined) that surrounds the hypothetical, I percieve emotions clouding your view of the subject.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

You seem to read too much into some statements and not enough into others. What I stated just a couple posts ago was that concepts help us understand what we observe. Concepts aren't the thing outside of perception, but the observed is there regardless of perceptionYou claimed that you never said anything of the sort (I think), I just pointed out an example. It was a question, not a point.-_- ... Obviously. Your question was suggesting a point, that of which I was unclear of. So to refrain from answering the question fallibly or problematically, I wanted a clarification of the point. And still, I gave an answer to the point I assumed you were trying to make so...  On a side note, oil spills through fissures on the ocean floor all the time.Because of who? You act as if this is some sort of natural occurring event...? What was the point of that, to further remind me of the unnatural/unnecessary destruction of the earth?Perhaps you can explain to me how my viewing of something can impose anything on anyone.You scrutinizing my debate with (the name lost me) about rational suicide, and seeing how the opposed claimed my rationale was composed of "emotion", one would only believe, in never seeing you use such terms until after that debate, that you were influenced by that view which caused you to think of such terminology when you get an answer to a question that was similar to an answer I gave the opposed when the unjust emotion, in his point of view, was stated. So thinking that your strong blatant assertion, (which was false), not being apart of this portrayal of your (presumed) 'creativeness', would be reasonable given the events. You scrutinizing that debate, then taking the opposed "emotional" viewpoint into consideration (seeing as how you were in his favor), therefore, (maybe inadvertently), constructing a profile towards me in regards to 'detrimental effects', is imposing. You impose emotion, more than likely, due to my explanation above. Since you never directly answered the hypothetical, but instead respond to everything (real and imagined) that surrounds the hypotheticalAll seriousness, I forgot the question. So if you would please, ask me again.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

This does not mean that it existsphysically in reality. You profess that it doesI claimed that space and time exist in reality. I claimed that they were axiomatic for physical reality, I never said they are physical themselves. Your question was suggesting a pointHow can you know this, and in the same post, not know what the question was? If you decide to answer the question, you can scroll up to refresh your memory. It's still there.Concerning the oil: Oil does get into the ocean naturally as a result of naturally occurring fissures. I know that humans spill, but it is not the only way oil gets there. I guess my point is that certain aspects of nature are destructive to other aspects. Humans are destructive, but we aren't the sole source of destruction.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Yes there is such a thing as objective morality.I think there are morals that nearly all agree on, but that is not "objective morality" - even if everyone agrees, that would not make it "objective" only provide evidence that it might be.Taking care of newborn offspring is objectively good.If you only have enough resources around for the children that already exist and keeping another child results in the death of that child and another, might it be more moral to let the infant die?If a newborn has severe deformations and will not live long and is in intense pain, would it be moral to end its suffering.If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities (which I have never seen).Owning another human (slavery) is objectively wrong.It depends on what your goal is, and the goal is always a subjective one. If your goal is minimize human suffering, etc. it would be seen as morally wrong. If your goal was the maximum human output, etc. then it would likely be preferred over some other systems.Slavery being acceptable in the past is not a measure of its subjectivity but a measure of how immoral people were in the pastIt isn't necessarily proof but it is evidence.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

If you only have enough resources around for the children that already exist and keeping another child results in the death of that child and another, might it be more moral to let the infant die?No. It would be prudent to recognize this type of scope before one brings new life into the world. If a newborn has severe deformations and will not live long and is in intense pain, would it be moral to end its suffering.If it will not live long then it's suffering will soon end won't it?It is not to say that the same answer for one moral question is the same for others which have different considerations. The morally correct answer for newborns born with deformities is not the same answer for newborns born without. But in situations where deformities exist there would be a morally correct answer in regard to the well being of the parties involved. If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities (which I have never seen).It is. I'm sure you have seen it but are just conditioned to recognize it in a certain way. It depends on what your goal is, and the goal is always a subjective one. If your goal is minimize human suffering, etc. it would be seen as morally wrong. If your goal was the maximum human output, etc. then it would likely be preferred over some other systems.I would argue that those systems which are built upon the suffering of others are immoral. It may not be realized until a new system is discovered, but looking back it would be recognized for it's immorality. It isn't necessarily proof but it is evidence.No. It is not proof and using a synonym doesn't make it any more apparent.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

It would be prudent to recognize this type of scope before one brings new life into the world.Not every pregnancy is a planned one. If a woman finds out she is pregnant in the above scenario, what is the moral thing for her to do?If it will not live long then it's suffering will soon end won't it?Does the length of time impact its morality?It is not to say that the same answer for one moral question is the same for others which have different considerations.Right, because it is subjective. The "considerations" will always be from a certain perspective.The morally correct answer for newborns born with deformities is not the same answer for newborns born without.Is there an objective reason why not? (Keep in mind that we are all born imperfect.)It is.Can you name it? Do you believe it applies to most situations, or all? Do you think the existence of moral dilemmas is evidence against it?I would argue that those systems which are built upon the suffering of others are immoral.Right, you would "subjectively" argue it - you would not be able to prove it objectively.It is not proof and using a synonym doesn't make it any more apparent.Not sure what you are trying to say here. Evidence is not the same thing as proof and I was clearly not asserting that they were.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Not every pregnancy is a planned one. If a woman finds out she is pregnant in the above scenario, what is the moral thing for her to do?You keep bringing up different scenarios and seemingly assume that there's one resolution to solve them all. Just because their exists an action which would constitute the most moral thing in any give situation doesn't mean we know what they all are. It's a learning process. Does the length of time impact its morality?I admit that I was being facetious in the remark this addresses. Right, because it is subjective. The "considerations" will always be from a certain perspective.No. it's not any different from incorrectly assuming that objective morality means that the answer to "should one steal" is the same answer to "should one give." It's asinine quite frankly. When you keep altering the scenario it should be no surprise that you get a different resolution, not because of subjectivity, but because your altering the scenario. Objective morality does not imply that there is only one answer to cover all topics and factors no matter how different they are. It's the idea that where questions exist pertaining to what ought or ought not be done, there exists a measurable effect which would not be affected by mere opinion. Is there an objective reason why not? (Keep in mind that we are all born imperfect.)I don't know about objective reason. But sure there's a reason. I haven't implied that anyone was born perfect or imperfect and I'm unsure where you're going with that.Can you name it? Do you believe it applies to most situations, or all? Do you think the existence of moral dilemmas is evidence against it?I'm not sure what your asking here. My "it is" response that you quoted was in response to when you said "If there was an objective morality, I would expect it to be more prevalent than one or two possibilities."It is. As in "it is more prevalent than one or two possibilities." Right, you would "subjectively" argue it - you would not be able to prove it objectively.I don't subjectively or objectively argue it... You seem to feel the need to interject those words randomly throughout your dialog, it only leads me to believe you don't quite understand how to use them.I may not personally be able to prove how any system built on the suffering of others is immoral but that doesn't mean that such a system would not have a measurable effect on the well being of the constituents.Those measurable effects are what would ascertain it as moral or immoral whatever the case would be.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Just because their exists an action which would constitute the most moral thing in any give situation doesn't mean we know what they all are.So, your claim is that that universal morality is both prevalent and hidden?It's a learning process.Then how do you know when you have it right?When you keep altering the scenario it should be no surprise that you get a different resolutionDoes a statement like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good" allow for such nuance?I haven't implied that anyone was born perfect or imperfect and I'm unsure where you're going with that.You said "[t]he morally correct answer for newborns born with deformities is not the same answer for newborns born without", and I am pointing out that "deformity" is a continuum - everyone is imperfect, it is just a matter of degree. If the degree of deformity, and all of the other inputs - probability of longevity, pain, happiness, etc. and the value that the interested parties put on life vs quality of life vs resources are all based on (subjective) perception - doesn't that describe subjective morality rather than something quaint like "[t]aking care of newborn offspring is objectively good"?it is more prevalent than one or two possibilitiesThen name them. If a specified moral has exceptions, then it is not universal, correct?You seem to feel the need to interject those words randomly throughout your dialogIn a discussion about objective vs subjective morality, I keep using the words objective and subjective - fancy that...Those measurable effects are what would ascertain it as moral or immoralIn order to "measure" a moral's rightness, you need to be able to gauge its progress toward some goal - preservation of the most humans, the most utility of resources, maximization of happiness, etc. There is no evidence of an objective goal, nor from whence it would come. There is, however, good evidence that our morality has evolved from primates who survived by balancing cooperation and competition.In the end you can't completely disprove the existence of something like God or objective morality; you can only offer evidence against it - inability to so far name one universal moral, the existence of moral dilemmas, etc. In addition I would mention that even if universal morality does exist, it is basically useless - if humans can't access it, what good is it exactly?
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I have several Hitchens books and I have been thinking about picking up this one by Sam - did you like it?Reading it basically marked the turning point for me of when I went from a hard proponent of subjective morality to one of moral objectivism… and I am not easily swayed without good reason.Harris would be able to explain it much more effectively than I could. Here’s a video, I will say that if you still have some contentions with this lecture to read his book and see if he clarifies anything.I believe there's also an author who wrote a critique of the Moral Landscape but it might have been on one of his other books.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

First impressions:Partly it is just circular logic:Good = Good (well-being) for those that can perceive good (conscious beings).Partly it does not fully describe morality:It is not always good to do good to those that perceive good - therefore there are other undescribed factors (current vs future well-being, collective vs self well-being, etc.) which are vectors for subjectivity to be required inputs of morality.Basically, he presents necessary (if tautological) factors for morality, but not sufficient conditions - (see also: agency vs determinism)Probably will pick up the book, just to have a fuller view of his opinion and be able to provide a more comprehensive critique, but I haven't really seen much in the way of new argument there that would change my mind so far.Thanks though for the recommendation, and for all your time etc.!
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Also wanted to mention that I think he does persuasively speak to how a strong foundation can be made using subjective morality and that is a good thing in my opinion. For people to not need a god for their morality to seem solid, we will need more discussion like this. Thanks again.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I think objective to what? If it's objective, then it should be to something. I think that this other debate is relevant:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What ifanythingisnecessary#arg584046I think to have objective morality, it has to be objective out of necessity TO SOMETHING.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

I believe the debate creator was using "objective" to indicate something that exists in actuality independent of our perception that it exists. You do not need necessity in any form at all for something to exist objectively (or subjectively).
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

independent of our perceptionLiving things objectively exist. But unlike other things in the universe, living things won't continue to exist unless they do the things necessary to continue.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Describing what must be done to survive as necessary inherently presumes the necessity of survival itself. There is no objective foundation from which to advance such a values based claim.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

It's necessary in the context of values. Which is the context wherein morals are .
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Which makes your argument the following: Values are necessary because we are necessary because of values. I call flagrant logical fallacy.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

We aren't necessary to the universe, we just are. We hold things to be necessary based on our values. The ability to hold values is a property of living things. (I don't care if you want to argue "not all living things", it's a minor point). Living things with values, first value their life. Since living things are the only thing that can value, and what they fundamentally value is their life, life is the only thing that could reasonably be said to have intrinsic value (in, of and by itself). I may have said this part, sorry. Since life comes in many forms, this value must be considered in context. Our context is humanity. One property of a living human is that they value their life. This is universal for all living humans (when people loose this value they stop living). This is the fundamental basis of what I would call an objectively derived morality. From this basic value we can determine rational principles which, if maintained, would serve the purpose of this fundamental value. The idea of an objective morality is that there actually are principles which would serve this purpose, regardless of opinion. Side note: My account doesn't show my activity in any predictable order. Usually I see very old activity only. As such I have to find each argument I made to see if anyone replied. Also, when I "jump to debate" it only takes me to the page so I have to really search. Apparently I have left some rebuttals unaddressed. This doesn't mean I have given up or ignored it. I haven't had time to find it. My apologies.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: No

Your argument remains that our subjective self-valuation somehow translates into an objective value simply because it exists. That does not follow. That we (generally) place value on our lives is entirely irrelevant to that value existing outside of our own perception of that value. The very definition of objectivity is that it exists external to our perception of it; personal feelings of value do not meet that criteria (no matter how universally perceived they may be). Consequentially, if you derive a system of morality from the basis of that subjective value then the system itself is inherently subjective even if objective approaches are applied therefrom. The premise, the very foundation, is an assumption of subjective experience; the derivation is not objective. Side note: Noted. Have you told admin? That is not the way mine functions... and I do not believe it is supposed to either.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

Your argument remains that our subjective self-valuation somehow translates into an objective value simply because it exists.My argument is that things have properties and that a property of living things is that valuation of life. Without it, there would not be living things. Nothing outside of the living is capable of valuation. How values make you feel is subjective, but their presence is an objective property. The human formulation of codes of conduct is what is required by human nature to maintain the property of valuation. A code of conduct in this instance is not subjective to humans, but a property of life in the context of humanity. Since I am arguing that self-valuation is a property of life, it isn't subjective. "How" the valuation is perceived/felt/acted on is subjective, "that" it is perceived is an objective property.Side Note: No I haven't. I will do that. In the mean time, if you have any unanswered posts that happen to come to mind, please remind me here. Otherwise, I will get it when I get it, or not.
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

And I keep saying what ever action is necessary for survival is instinctual or obvious. I do not combine instinct and obviousness with morality. Instinct and obviousness coincide. Lets say, for example, a lion walks to the edge of a cliff. When it gets there is knows not to keep going(instinct) or it will fall and die(obviousness.)
Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

(Formerly StickinStone)You're right, that debate is relevant to this. It seems stupid to say that things are necessary to themselves, except when you consider that life is unique in that it can go out of existence. For this reason, living things have to value life and have to actually take action to maintain life. Some actions are objectively detrimental to that life, while other actions enhance. These things are objectively "good" and "bad". None of this means that morality is in fact objective, only that there is such a thing.