Is Morality Objective?

A place for more formal debate. Be a spectator, vote on the winner, or start one of your own. Read about how the forum works.

Moderator: Carleas

Is Morality Objective?

Postby Carleas » Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:29 pm

Claim: Morality is objective
Arguing in favor: Ecmandu
Arguing against: Aventador

5 posts each, alternating, with Ecmandu to start.
No limits on length other than what the software imposes.
Ecmandu will make the first post within 24 hours, and each subsequent post will be within 24 hours of the preceding post.


Best of luck to you both; Ecmandu, you're up.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Magister Ludi
Posts: 6152
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Jun 23, 2021 7:56 pm

Alright. Let’s do this. Thank you Aventador and Carleas.

Alright. Let’s do this.

Is everything determined? Inquiring spirits want to know. Why? Because they argue that morality is subjective and not objective.

Let’s do this.

One, first has to establish that we’re not all determined in order to put forth a moral argument - objective or not.

Ok let’s do this.

If everything were determined, we’d have no capacity to distinguish the concept of determinism - we’d be violating the law of otherness in order to distinguish. In this particular situation, the otherness happens to be a dichotomy (polar opposites). You do not need dichotomies in order to discern ... take a tree for example. What’s the opposite of a tree? Maybe nothing? But that’s the opposite of everything, and we know that the lack of all (non-existence) can’t be there by definition - thus existence.

So then we have freewill and determinism as dichotomies. Do they work? No.

For every existent, a context is required. For example: I have to exist to type this and you have to exist to read this. What this means is that there’s interdependence for all existents. This is determined. This is how existence works. When I spoke above about freewill needing to exist because you can’t abstract determinism as an other (and we do abstract it), we can prove a measure of free choice. It’s necessary in order to even abstract the argument.

But then we have the argument that everything has a context, a condition.

Where does this bring us? Compatibilism.

Existence itself is actually compatibilistic as well (between nothing and every possible thing or state being true). But that’s another argument for another day.

The purpose of this is to first post that choices exist in order to argue objective morality.

Objective morality is simple to define:

It’s true regardless of your opinion.

I’ve heard about people jumping off a cliff in a psychotic state believing they’d fly. They splat on the ground. That’s objective. Your opinion doesn’t matter here.

What’s morally objective then? True no matter what your opinion is?

Nobody wants their consent violated. It’s true by definition. Everyone has the capacity to have their consent massively violated. To say you want your consent violated because you are tough is massively ignorant about existence... hell is pure imagination. It’s worse than you can possibly comprehend, never get cocky about hell.

So what are we working with here?

We make decisions with conditions.

One understanding worth having is that existence in some way, shape or form is violating every beings consent. That means objectively, that existence itself is not moral. From this, one concludes that existence as we currently experience it is not about good or bad; it’s about better or worse.

The goal is to make it good.

Harm reduction until we solve the problem.

Harm reduction involves common sense. You’ll always be violating the consent of a severe criminal by locking them up; the exception to the rule of consent violation is that we have the right and the power to speak up against abuse and do something about it.

Again, common sense, objective.

The reason I call it objective is because if there were no life forms and suddenly life forms emerged; the laws would always be the same.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
ILP Legend
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: Is Morality Objective?

Postby Carleas » Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:00 pm

Aventador forfeits, Ecmandu wins by intimidation.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Magister Ludi
Posts: 6152
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Return to Chamber of Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users