Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false

Round 1

1 of 5

JohnPower

Pro #1

Moral relativism means that normative truth or actuality exists only for or to certain perspectives rather than all of them, and therefore that there may exist many contradictory moral truths.

Moral subjectivism means that normative truth or actuality depends primarily on subjective beliefs or feelings about those truths or actualizations.

I view moral relativism as the weaker one. This is because that moral truths exist only to specific perspectives is itself a universal and objective truth that holds independently of all perspectives. In other words, a moral perspective or framework that says moral truths are objectively true independently of any perspective would be categorically false under moral relativism, which would include moral relativism. It would only not if it arbitrated, which would be baseless. However, despite that it is self-contradictory, moral relativism also does not explain why morality is relative. It doesn't even succeed in explaining what morality or ethics even is.

Moral subjectivism fails for a somewhat similar reason. No truth or actuality in existence can depend on subjective comprehension or values about them. That is because everything that exists is real, while what subjective believe or would value can include false or unreal things. Even objective reality that is directly the existence of the subjective or its direct relations is ultimately real and not dependent in this way on what beliefs about them are. In other words, if everyone believed that morality or ethics has objective truth independently of all subjective beliefs or feelings about them, then moral subjectivism would suggest that it would be true that it does, and that therefore, moral subjectivism would be false. So, moral subjectivism, to avoid contradiction, must attempt to say that any normativity to speak about is dependent on the subjective because it is all actually invalid. But, this would also directly contradict moral subjectivism. However, despite that it is self-contradictory, moral subjectivism also does not explain why morality is dependent on the subjective in this way. It doesn't succeed in explaining what morality or ethics must be.

Mal

Con #2

I'm going to make this super plain.

This is going to be all according to the society in which we dwell because this so called morality concerns exactly how we act, behave and treat one another.

People may refer to these things as social contracts. You know, just social understandings.

So a person that believes or says it is moral to support abortion, that moral rule is according to that person which makes what is called moral subjected to the person.

Now, a person that believes or say it is moral to support life, that moral rule is according to that person which makes what is called moral subjected to the person.

It is all relative. This is true based on the reality of our societies, governments, politics and policies and political debates that showcase this. Not to mention legal amendments and changes in the law.

So , does the opposing side have any questions regarding all this?

Present them.

Round 2

2 of 5

JohnPower

Pro #3

You said, "...morality concerns exactly how we act, behave and treat one another."

This isn't quite true. Morality doesn't just concern how we act, it's about how we should act, and neither of the two frameworks provide a basis for it.

Then, you say, "People may refer to these things as social contracts. You know, just social understandings."

While those exist, those aren't necessarily equal to morality. For instance, why follow your end of a contract? Why make a contract? The reasons for doing so would lie externally to the contract itself.

Then, you say, "So a person that believes or says it is moral to support abortion, that moral rule is according to that person which makes what is called moral subjected to the person."

But, this doesn't reality concern whether it's true. Moral relativism and moral subjectivism aren't just about acknowledging that people have contested beliefs, the former actively suggests that contradictory frameworks can all be equal or sufficient to be true, while the latter suggests that the truth of morality is based not just in that it is believed, but that it is indexed to the specific content of the belief.

This is why I think we don't actually disagree here. These two ideas don't say that morality is contested and therefore invalid, they're closer to saying that all of morality is valid or contributes to validity, which I find ridiculous, and I think you might too.

For example, let's say there are two people standing side by side. One of them is taller but the other is standing on a box. So, the one on the box is above the taller person. A third person who can see them both clearly would say the one not on the box is actually taller. A fourth person who can't see the box might think the one on the box is taller. The third and fourth people have different perspectives, so they came to different conclusions. But, regardless, there is still a fact of the matter, there is a truth about which one is taller. These moral relativism and moral subjectivism resist this kind of conclusion and are like trying to appeal to the conclusions of both people, regardless of how they came to those conclusions.

This holds regardless of if you disagree with morality being true or false in general, including objective morality. This is straightforward logic.

And, this is why your examples aren't analogous, "It is all relative. This is true based on the reality of our societies, governments, politics and policies and political debates that showcase this. Not to mention legal amendments and changes in the law."

Those structures absolute vary and they come from all sorts of moral assumptions or perspectives, but the point of moral relativism is to simultaneously validate them all.

For example, if one country makes abortion legal and another one makes abortion illegal, moral relativism says both are right. Why? Because they're right for those countries. But, the restriction of morality to these perspectives in the first place is a baseless presupposition. Also, it might complicate how anyone could ever be wrong about what's moral. For instance, people can have straightforwardly contradictory personal beliefs, so even considering the smallest individual perspective, it doesn't seem possible that they could all be true. This is because whether they're true, the standard of truth, must exceed these perspectives.

Either way, you didn't really respond to any of my arguments.

Here are the two most important ones.

"This is because that moral truths exist only to specific perspectives is itself a universal and objective truth that holds independently of all perspectives. In other words, a moral perspective or framework that says moral truths are objectively true independently of any perspective would be categorically false under moral relativism, which would include moral relativism."

"No truth or actuality in existence can depend on subjective comprehension or values about them. That is because everything that exists is real, while what subject[s] believe or would value can include false or unreal things. Even objective reality that is directly the existence of the subjective or its direct relations is ultimately real and not dependent in this way on what beliefs about them are. In other words, if everyone believed that morality or ethics has objective truth independently of all subjective beliefs or feelings about them, then moral subjectivism would suggest that it would be true that it does, and that therefore, moral subjectivism would be false."

If you cannot prove that these claims aren't true, then it would hold that these two frameworks are logically self-contradictory and, therefore, false.

Mal

Con #4

"This isn't quite true. Morality doesn't just concern how we act, it's about how we should act, and neither of the two frameworks provide a basis for it."

Doesn't make a difference whether you want to throw "should" in the mix or not. It's all according to society and you are very much of society so even "should" is according to society. So therefore it is relative to society.

"For instance, why follow your end of a contract? Why make a contract? The reasons for doing so would lie externally to the contract itself."

That's up to society. You tend to miss the points. The point is not about whether emphasizing the word "should" or calling something a contract. Whatever, it is all relative as demonstrated by its existence which you have to prove it is not relative but just set in stone somewhere in some type of reality where subjectivism doesn't occur at all.

"But, this doesn't reality concern whether it's true. "

Ok, making it simple again. Since you haven't asked any questions yet, I'll ask some.

Is it true that a person that says abortion is wrong like saying a particular book read is bad, is related to that person saying it ?

"Moral relativism and moral subjectivism aren't just about acknowledging that people have contested beliefs, the former actively suggests that contradictory frameworks can all be equal or sufficient to be true, while the latter suggests that the truth of morality is based not just in that it is believed, but that it is indexed to the specific content of the belief."

Here's your problem. You complicate.

Just an either or format to the question.

Are people's contested beliefs related to the people or unrelated to them?

"This is why I think we don't actually disagree here. These two ideas don't say that morality is contested and therefore invalid, they're closer to saying that all of morality is valid or contributes to validity, which I find ridiculous, and I think you might too."

I hope you're not confusing a previous topic with this. The topic is : "Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false"

My position doesn't support this statement. It is false. It is true that a moral or two is related to the so called moral sayer, maker and or giver. Whatever which is based on is subject to it by being its subject which is subjectivism.

I think I know what topic you really wish to debate but I have to hold you to the exact topic you worded.

"For example, let's say there are two people standing side by side. One of them is taller but the other is standing on a box. So, the one on the box is above the taller person. A third person who can see them both clearly would say the one not on the box is actually taller. A fourth person who can't see the box might think the one on the box is taller. The third and fourth people have different perspectives, so they came to different conclusions. But, regardless, there is still a fact of the matter, there is a truth about which one is taller. These moral relativism and moral subjectivism resist this kind of conclusion and are like trying to appeal to the conclusions of both people, regardless of how they came to those conclusions."

All this is subjective. Doesn't rule out any subjectivism. You've just illustrated several points of view which is subjectivism.

"This holds regardless of if you disagree with morality being true or false in general, including objective morality. This is straightforward logic."

I believe we agree so called morality is subjective. People that say it is objective is also subjective.

"And, this is why your examples aren't analogous"

It's because you know it demonstrates moral subjectivity.

"Those structures absolute vary and they come from all sorts of moral assumptions or perspectives, but the point of moral relativism is to simultaneously validate them all."

All subjective, that's correct. Perspectives are that which perpetuate subjectivism.

"For example, if one country makes abortion legal and another one makes abortion illegal, moral relativism says both are right. Why? Because they're right for those countries. But, the restriction of morality to these perspectives in the first place is a baseless presupposition. Also, it might complicate how anyone could ever be wrong about what's moral. For instance, people can have straightforwardly contradictory personal beliefs, so even considering the smallest individual perspective, it doesn't seem possible that they could all be true. This is because whether they're true, the standard of truth, must exceed these perspectives."

All relative and subjective, no doubt, right.

"Either way, you didn't really respond to any of my arguments.

Here are the two most important ones.

"This is because that moral truths exist only to specific perspectives is itself a universal and objective truth that holds independently of all perspectives. In other words, a moral perspective or framework that says moral truths are objectively true independently of any perspective would be categorically false under moral relativism, which would include moral relativism." "

By you saying perspective, you're saying subjective and relative. If you don't deny these things exist, it's not false that they do which is opposed to the topic statement. The topic statement says they're false.

I think you're really looking for the topic to be, is "objective morality" existent?

Now if you want that discussion, just reword the topic.

"No truth or actuality in existence can depend on subjective comprehension or values about them. That is because everything that exists is real, while what subject[s] believe or would value can include false or unreal things. Even objective reality that is directly the existence of the subjective or its direct relations is ultimately real and not dependent in this way on what beliefs about them are. In other words, if everyone believed that morality or ethics has objective truth independently of all subjective beliefs or feelings about them, then moral subjectivism would suggest that it would be true that it does, and that therefore, moral subjectivism would be false."

I'll say this because I can't fully understand everything being said here. You may want to condense and concise it down. Perhaps with everyday examples.

But I'll say this. It is the truth that I like one thing and not another that another person likes. The truth of what I like does depend on my subjectivism. So , really, as simple and concise as that.

"If you cannot prove that these claims aren't true, then it would hold that these two frameworks are logically self-contradictory and, therefore, false."

The claim that moral relativity is false is a false claim because people have morals relative to them like people's interests are related to them.

I yield.

Round 3

3 of 5

JohnPower

Pro #5

You seem to thoroughly misunderstand these frameworks. There is such a thing as descriptive relativism. This means that different people, cultures, or groups can have different moral beliefs or values. This is obviously true.

Then, there is such a thing as metaethical relativism. This is what would be claimed by moral relativism. It says, not only do these different beliefs and values exist, they're all true. In other words, it means that abortion is wrong and it is also okay, but only for the right perspectives, not in general. This is different from rejecting morality and this is different from calling it arbitrary.

I'm saying limiting it to perspectives in the first place is a fundamental ontological error. I'm saying that because that is not how things can be true. Regardless of what perspectives could believe or value, things are true regardless.

So, when you say, "Whatever, it is all relative as demonstrated by its existence which you have to prove it is not relative but just set in stone somewhere in some type of reality where subjectivism doesn't occur at all."

You are arguing for descriptive relativism when I never rejected it. Obviously, the usage of morality is relative to what uses it. It changes between and depends on groups or different individuals. But, you haven't managed to argue for metaethical relativism, which would say that not only is the existence of moral beliefs relative, the validity of them is as well.

You asked, "Is it true that a person that says abortion is wrong like saying a particular book read is bad, is related to that person saying it?"

Yeah, that seems true to me! But, this is only, and barely, a defense of descriptive relativism. Moral relativism says that they are correct when they say the book is bad.

Then, you say, "It is true that a moral or two is related to the so called moral sayer, maker and or giver. Whatever which is based on is subject to it by being its subject which is subjectivism."

This seems to be essentially the same argument. I have not rejected that when someone invokes morality that their usage relates or is relative to them.

Then, you say, "All this is subjective. Doesn't rule out any subjectivism. You've just illustrated several points of view which is subjectivism."

You completely missed the point. I showed how subjective beliefs don't perfectly track reality. Moral subjectivism suggests otherwise. I'm not denying that subjective beliefs exist. I'm saying that not every subjective belief constitutes the true.

Then, you say, "I believe we agree so called morality is subjective. People that say it is objective is also subjective."

No, we do not agree, and based on what I've seen you say, I think neither of us think it is subjective. I'm not trying to argue for objective morality. Whether the usage of morality is subjective (it obviously is) is irrelevant to whether its validity is subjective.

Then, you say, "All relative and subjective, no doubt, right."

Only descriptively.

The rest of your message is essentially the same mistake.

I'll try to clarify something since it is quite important.

Moral beliefs are relative: We both accept this but this is irrelevant

Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this but this is irrelevant

Moral beliefs are true: This is closer to what these frameworks mean, and you haven't defended it, nor does it seem like you would want to

I'll give a specific example

"abortion is evil"

Let's ask some questions

Is this belief relative to the individual? Yes (descriptive relativism)

Is it true that this belief exists? Yes (basic empirical fact)

Is it true that abortion is evil? Irrelevant (ethical inquiry)

Is whether abortion is evil relative to perspectives? (Metaethical inquiry)

Focus on the last question. Moral relativism says yes.

Moral relativism means "yes, whether abortion is evil is relative to perspectives"

What does this mean? I'll start with what it doesn't mean.

This does not mean that:

People have their own beliefs

Beliefs are relative to particular individuals, cultures, or groups

So...what does it mean?

"yes, whether abortion is evil is relative to perspectives"

Imagine two people:

Person 1: I think abortion is wrong

Person 2: I think abortion is okay

Moral relativism means that both of them are correct.

How can they both be correct?

Moral relativism means they are correct to and for themselves, or to whatever group or culture they are a part of.

So, moral relativism means that abortion cannot be wrong in general or objectively wrong. It means that it's only wrong when perspectives decide it is wrong.

Remember, this is not just an acknowledgement that people disagree.

So, I still believe that you actually oppose moral relativism and moral subjectivism. Based on our previous debate, I would say you either believe in moral nihilism or objective morality.

I'll give an example of amoral relativism to illustrate my point.

Person 1: I think the moon is made of cheese!

Person 2: No, it's made of rocks and dust.

Moral relativism, rather than just acknowledging a difference between the beliefs, would be like saying they're both correct.

In other words, it would like if the moon was made of cheese, but only for a culture that believes it to be true that it is made of cheese. I would imagine you do not support that.

Mal

Con #6

"This means that different people, cultures, or groups can have different moral beliefs or values. This is obviously true."

So the moral beliefs are subjected to them, right.

"In other words, it means that abortion is wrong and it is also okay, but only for the right perspectives, not in general. This is different from rejecting morality and this is different from calling it arbitrary."

So the perspectives are subjected to those folks, right.

"I'm saying limiting it to perspectives in the first place is a fundamental ontological error. I'm saying that because that is not how things can be true. Regardless of what perspectives could believe or value, things are true regardless."

Something can be true for one person and not for another. For instance, one person says this is a good book to read for education to solve some sort of issue. Another person says it is not and it just goes on from there oscillating. What's true for one is not for another. So things can be true regarding some views and not others making it non regardless but regarding whichever whoever is in the equation.

"Obviously, the usage of morality is relative to what uses it. It changes between and depends on groups or different individuals. But, you haven't managed to argue for metaethical relativism, which would say that not only is the existence of moral beliefs relative, the validity of them is as well."

Nevermind validity. Not the topic. Again, the topic is regarding moral relativity being false, meaning IT DOESN'T EXIST.

So by you saying morality is relative, it exists. It's true, it's real. If you want to discuss "metaethical relativism", whatever that is, setup another topic.

"Yeah, that seems true to me! But, this is only, and barely, a defense of descriptive relativism. Moral relativism says that they are correct when they say the book is bad."

Do you have any questions for me?

"This seems to be essentially the same argument. I have not rejected that when someone invokes morality that their usage relates or is relative to them."

Do you have any questions for me?

"You completely missed the point. I showed how subjective beliefs don't perfectly track reality. Moral subjectivism suggests otherwise. I'm not denying that subjective beliefs exist. I'm saying that not every subjective belief constitutes the true."

When we talk about perfect, that's no flaw, no error, no misstep. There's nothing imperfect about me believing in myself to do what it is I am aiming to do. Even if someone else can't do the same, it's still a reality for me perfectly so. I believe I can fly , I believe I can touch the sky.

As long as some subjective beliefs constitutes as truth, the topic can be pushed back on and negated. If the topic was "Some moral subjectivism is false", you may have something different there.

"I've seen you say, I think neither of us think it is subjective. I'm not trying to argue for objective morality. Whether the usage of morality is subjective (it obviously is) is irrelevant to whether its validity is subjective."

I quote you again:

"I'm not denying that subjective beliefs exist."

Subjective beliefs of morality and validity go with that.

"Only descriptively."

Right. All relative and subjective, no doubt.

"Moral beliefs are relative: We both accept this but this is irrelevant"

In your position, they should not be relative because the topic statement basically says moral relativity is false.

You can make it irrelevant by conceding the topic.

"Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this but this is irrelevant

Moral beliefs are true: This is closer to what these frameworks mean, and you haven't defended it, nor does it seem like you would want to"

You said "Moral beliefs are relative" and "Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this" and the topic says: "Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false"

You said "Moral beliefs are relative" and "Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this" and the topic says: "Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false"

You said "Moral beliefs are relative" and "Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this" and the topic says: "Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false"

Why would I have to defend myself from you with a gun when you done.....took my gun and blew ya own head off with it?

There you are in this so called debate .... laying there dead.

"Moral relativism means "yes, whether abortion is evil is relative to perspectives"

This does not mean that:

People have their own beliefs"

You said "Moral beliefs are relative" and "Moral beliefs truly exist"

When beliefs are relative, are they relative to what they're owned by and are the owners...... people?

"Moral relativism means they are correct to and for themselves, or to whatever group or culture they are a part of.

So, moral relativism means that abortion cannot be wrong in general or objectively wrong. It means that it's only wrong when perspectives decide it is wrong."

Ok and this is your "moralistic relativity " or opinion on it saying in general it cannot be wrong. Whereas the person according to that person, abortion in general cannot be right ..... or... vice versa.

It's all subjective. Even when you declare an objective moral rule, that falls under subjectivity. This is how I learned that trying to argue objective over subjective just puts things in a loop unlike explaining things in "do's" and "don'ts" in the order of existing things.

"So, I still believe that you actually oppose moral relativism and moral subjectivism. Based on our previous debate, I would say you either believe in moral nihilism or objective morality."

My position for this debate is your worded concession:

You said "Moral beliefs are relative" and "Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this" and the topic says: "Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false"

What truly exists cannot be false.

Case about closed .

Round 4

4 of 5

JohnPower

Pro #7

Moral relativism isn't descriptive relativism. I don't need to make a new debate just because you're unable to comprehend metaethics. moral relativism is a metaethical position.

You repeatedly say, "You said "Moral beliefs are relative" and "Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this" and the topic says: "Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false""

And, you think there is a contradiction. This demonstrates that your ability to think is not advanced enough to understand such a simple thing.

"Moral beliefs are relative"

And

"Moral beliefs truly exist"

Are both empirically true and they are both consistent with moral anti-relativism.

Just one simple question. If I said the moon is made of cheese, but that's just my belief, could it be true?

If you would agree it's not made of cheese independently of perspectives, then you would concede the logic that undermines moral relativism.

Mal

Con #8

"Just one simple question. If I said the moon is made of cheese, but that's just my belief, could it be true?"

Yes.

I rest my case.

Round 5

5 of 5

JohnPower

Pro #9

So, you think the moon might just be made of cheese?

Then, I must extend my argument.

If I said I won this debate, but that's just my belief, might it be true?

I'd say, independently of opinions, one of us outperformed the other.

Mal

Con #10

"So, you think the moon might just be made of cheese?"

Now you shift from what you say to what I think.

It's all subjective regardless. At least in this case.

"Then, I must extend my argument.

If I said I won this debate, but that's just my belief, might it be true?"

If I didn't catch you in contradiction, I could offer the "might" or possibility.

However you conceded when you said the following:

You said "Moral beliefs are relative" and "Moral beliefs truly exist: We both accept this" and the topic says: "Moral relativism and moral subjectivism are false"

What truly exists cannot be false.

Case completely closed now.

It was fun.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

Round 5

New comment