The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Objective Moralityin Philosophy

DrCereal

Does it exist? If you believe so, please give reason for why.

Medic

kant

DrCereal

Medic said:

kant

Elaborate.

Medic

C1: morality as understood by empiricists is a posterori (this morality would be relative)
C2: however, this can only tell us how humans do act, not how they should act
C3: therefore all morality must be a priori
P1: therefore morality is objectve

Medic

addendum: therefore morality as determined by relativism cannot be normative

KingHarris

I believe the concept of objective morality exists, as that being the idea that a specific doctrine or set of rules objectively states the morals one should follow. However there are thousands of diffirent books and teachings one can and does get their morals from, so that is why objective morality exists as a concept but not as a fact.

DrCereal

Medic said:

C1: morality as understood by empiricists is a posterori (this morality would be relative)
C2: however, this can only tell us how humans do act, not how they should act
C3: therefore all morality must be a priori
P1: therefore morality is objectve

What do you mean by saying that a posteriori knowledge is "relative"?
What do the C's and P stand for?

I'll be back with a further critique (if one is called for) after I have adequately pondered over this argument.

Medic

c is contention where p is proof

the type of morality that is non-religious (ie the one we're arguing here) is either rationalist (ie a kantian idea of morality being able to be determined by logic alone) or empiricist (relative and is determined by human experience)

DrCereal

Medic said:

C1: morality as understood by empiricists is a posterori (this morality would be relative)
C2: however, this can only tell us how humans do act, not how they should act
C3: therefore all morality must be a priori
P1: therefore morality is objectve

I think the largest problem I seem to have with this argument is the presupposition that there is a way one should act (almost as if there is an objective morality). It seems to me that this argument is simply begging the question with contention 2.

Medic

On the contrary, it assumes that morality is a posterori and shows why this is absurd.

Mike

“Morality” and “code of conduct” are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, in forming a group, the objective of morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective code of conduct, while following a code of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life of the group.

DrCereal

Medic said:

On the contrary, it assumes that morality is a posterori and shows why this is absurd.

Yes, but you also seem to assume that answers to "should" questions (i.e., morality) are knowable at all (i.e., that they are either a priori or a posteriori knowledge). Like I said, that's begging the question.

Medic

That's a more reasonable critique, but the purpose of morality as understood by Kant, is indeed to make value judgements (normative statements). If it doesn't do that then it's useless. Therefore, in order for morality to have purpose it must make normative statements.

DrCereal

Medic said:

That's a more reasonable critique, but the purpose of morality as understood by Kant, is indeed to make value judgements (normative statements). If it doesn't do that then it's useless. Therefore, in order for morality to have purpose it must make normative statements.

Sorry, but I do believe my original statement you have responded to meant something that it was not intended to mean. I have fixed this now so you may want to reread it.
If it says what you thought, then all is well, I suppose, though I have a feeling that you didn't read what wasn't there.