The Moral Quandary: which is the true morality?

Bread.

Bread.

Gold Member
Objective morality poses that there are universal morals or standards that apply to all people, regardless of personal beliefs. This prinicipal is grounded in an external source such as a higher power or natural law. This is what provides the framework for making moral judgments and guiding ethical behavior. It suggests that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, good or bad. This allows a reliable and consistent foundation for ethical judgements.

Subjective morality is a perspective where moral judgments and principles are based on individual beliefs and societal norms. It suggests that morality is not grounded in universally objective truth, but rather varies from person to person or across different cultures and societies. It acknowledges that what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable can vary across different societies or personal circumstances.

If you are using morality as the core of your argument then which is it and why not the other>
 
If you are to use any sort of morality it ultimately falls into moral subjectivity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you wish for other people to respect your points of view, then you must also respect theirs. Remember, we debate issues here, not individuals. If you cannot present your position on an issue without resorting to insults, then there's a good chance that your position is not very strong to begin with.
 
Bread. said:
If you wish for other people to respect your points of view, then you must also respect theirs. Remember, we debate issues here, not individuals. If you cannot present your position on an issue without resorting to insults, then there's a good chance that your position is not very strong to begin with.
Click to expand...
Absofuckinglutely not. You respect opinions, not ideologies that invalidate other human's existence. If you can't present a "debate" without relying on the invalidation or implied micro aggressions, its not a debate.
 
People without a belief system will just present the idea that everything they do is right because they say it is. Such as that micro agressive member over there.

If there are no consequences or rewards based on moral actions, then this undermines the significance of moral decision-making in human life. ie the need for subjective morality.

One could say moral truth exists outside of human opinion by posing the idea that killing and torturing someone is universally agreed as wrong.
 
so does that mean if the majority of people with "morals" believe that trans rights are human rights and that it's morally inexcusable to deny them gender affirming care that the universality of the situation is that you're wrong? or is it just a universal moral when it agrees with you, yourself, specifically?
 
This is a philosophical debate about morality not a debate about me.

Remember, we debate issues here, not individuals.

I dont want to talk about sexuality or gender in this thread because everytime i do i am ostricized and labeled.
It goes against the very principles of subjective morality
 
If you wish to see my viewpoint then stop being disruptive and using ad hominem attacks. I am not your dog and i dont have to respond to your disrespectful argumentative comments.

There is a difference in making an argument and being argumentative.
 
Bread. said:
This is a philosophical debate about morality not a debate about me.

Remember, we debate issues here, not individuals.

I dont want to talk about sexuality or gender in this thread because everytime i do i am ostricized and labeled.
It goes against the very principles of subjective morality
Click to expand...
If you want to debate morality then by definition, it has to encompass your own moral compass. Subjectivity requires it. So does objectivity. @StubleU is spot on.
 
Actually it doesnt.
Shark Tank No GIF by ABC Network

Anyone can discuss what is morally right or wrong without basing it on their own beliefs. I can debate either type of morality without personally believing in it or stating my own opinion.

You see these types of positions often in academic discussions where liberal arts students try to question great debaters. In fact, analyzing and presenting an argument from a neutral or objective view is probably the best approach to a debate as it inherently removes personal views. This is a good way to weigh the merits of different viewpoints without favoring your personal bias.

This encourages everyone to intellectually delve deeper into whatever the debate topic is
.
Shark Tank Wine GIF by ABC Network
 
I might have accepted that as a position from another poster but you're disingenuous. Your "debates" are set up to allow you to push your own agenda which, of course, is based on dogma rather than reason.

I've taken part in formal debates where proponents and opponents are chosen randomly without reference to personal belief and are expected to argue their case dispassionately. Yes, it can work as a purely intellectual exercise and it's fun to argue a different viewpoint. This, however, is not the case here and never is when it comes to one of your "debate" posts.

Any "morality" argument you may come up with is certainly influenced by your own moral compass. You're a dogmatist after all.
 
How exactly am i pushing "my own agenda" when ive not taken a stance on the topic.

You keep saying you are a great debater yet all you do is form rebutals with a pre conceived notion and personal attacks against the character not the debate. Your ad hominem arguments suggest a lack of substance and credibility towards the topic. They also suggest you foster some inner hostility.
emileh said:
I might have accepted that as a position from another poster
Click to expand...
Do you not see the hipocrisy or are you blinded by rage?

This comment shows how intellectually immature you are and dont argue with facts, logic and reasoning.
The fundamental principle of a debate is to present and strengthen your ideas with logical coherence and sound reasoning, not by evaulating and attacking the identity of the speakers.

Sounds to me like your rebutal is flawed and frankly quite childish.
Shark Tank Lol GIF by ABC Network
 
You are addressing the debate topic by using ad hominem attacks.

I am addressing your ad hominem attacks.

There is a difference.

This is why you should remain respectful in a debate. Your argumentum ad hominem is disruptive towards this debate
 
I think you need to learn what argumentum ad hominem actually is.

But then proper debate was never your strong point was it?
 
emileh said:
I think you need to learn what argumentum ad hominem actually is.

But then proper debate was never your strong point was it?
Click to expand...
Ad hominem, type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter.
emileh said:
I might have accepted that as a position from another poster but you're disingenuous. Your "debates" are set up to allow you to push your own agenda which, of course, is based on dogma rather than reason.

I've taken part in formal debates where proponents and opponents are chosen randomly without reference to personal belief and are expected to argue their case dispassionately. Yes, it can work as a purely intellectual exercise and it's fun to argue a different viewpoint. This, however, is not the case here and never is when it comes to one of your "debate" posts.

Any "morality" argument you may come up with is certainly influenced by your own moral compass. You're a dogmatist after all.
Click to expand...

Doesnt seem like intelligence is your strong point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top