Moral Debates - Useless?

Ethics, the practice that drives one's morality. Morality, the concern with right and wrong. Morality is subjective upon one's personal definition. Morality is never objective. A debate is an argument using logic.

To win a debate, one must use logic. Morality definitions are always subjective. Therefore, one can't debate using morality, as its definitions are subjective.

So, can one argue points of morality using logic?

 

Why is morality necessarily subjective?

 

The definitions don't have to be subjective. IE: I believe it is moral to kill people.

Subjectivity isn't the problem. The problem is an agreement on a fundamental axiom. A utilitarian would presume this axiom to be "morals for the greater good", while an anarchist would promote the individual. There are really only a limited number of axioms for each argument one can follow.

Also, an argument does not need to provide a better solution. It can simply be the exploration of a concept until it arrives at the fundamental disagreement.

 

I'm talking the definition of morality. For instance, one's definition for something moral may be: Something that promotes happiness, health, or well-being to a person. And vice-versa for immoral. One can't debate with their subjective definition as it is not, by definition, logical.

 

I don't understand. Do you mean: It is immoral to kill people? I disagree with that, making it subjective.

Contradiction. Those two groups have a different definition predicated on their mental state-of-mind. Therefore, it's subjective.

 

I personally wouldn't say so

Comparing other peoples viewpoints against your own... gain new understandings of matters on many subjects and many peoples views are changed when they are given a different opinion or an opinion which is projected in another way

 

For the most part, I would agree. But one's morals are predicated upon their mental state-of-mind. You can't, except by possible years of therapy or medication, change their state-of-mind.

For instance:

Joe had a great connection with his Dad, who regularly physically and verbally abused his Mom. Having that connection, and idolizing his Dad, Joe comes to believe that it's fine to abuse women. However, Jim had a strong connection with his Dad who strongly condemned abusing women, so his morals believe that women are to be treated with respect. A debate cannot simply change their state-of-mind with a debate.

 

^ Obviously thats a high case-scenario

But for example there's a thread on pressing a button, which would kill a random person and you'd receive $1m

A few people saw it as extraordinary or hugely discusting to do such a thing
but in my eyes, if you dont donate to a charity, your in a sense pushing a button which says no... which in return would end up with a child starving without food or water

The money you used to buy your designer jumper, or new ps3 you wouldn't feel guilt for buying it
but you could have saved lives, in essence your an indirect murderer

i'd see pushing a button and killing someone for money pretty much the same thing.

thus yes, i'd do it.


in some cases they may proof useless, but its widely known and accepting moral debates can lead to understanding and acceptance on new subjects and matters.

 

Forgive me for just getting to your conclusion. But, you're treating your conclusion as an axiom, yet that little word "can" means there are exceptions. You're creating a contradiction.

 

Just because it's widely known doesn't mean it has a 100% success rate, or will be beneficial to everyone

 

Exactly what I am saying. You can't call it a conclusion, when it hasn't concluded.

 

The ability to disagree does not produce a flaw with a definition. All meaningful assertions should have an opposing one. Subjectivity becomes a problem in debate when it leads to SUBJECTIVE definitions. As in: "The car is big". Here one might ask, what does big mean? As with morality, one one then establish a presiding argument ("big" means bigger than 10 feet long for example), and if you agree with this objective definition, one can continue the argument. It seems like you need to get your terminologies sorted through.

The goal of moral debates isn't necessarily to achieve some "best" morality, in which the "best" leaves behind great ambiguity. It is merely an examination of a situation following different axioms of logic.

Yes, but the arguments need not begin there, even if they end there. Once again, I would argue that the definition of the argument isn't the subjective part, it's the eventual arrival at the fundamental disagreement.

 

I didn't say i had concluded anything.

 

How do I need to get my terminologies sorted through?

Subjective: taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias.

I never said the definition, itself was flawed. I said the argument that follows it must surely be flawed.

Example:

* For this example, my definition of murder is: Intentionally exterminating the life of another human without their consent.

A drug-lord murders someone who steals from him. Billy is outraged, and demands his head. While, Jimmy sees nothing wrong with it, as he finds it morally acceptable. They argue because of their definition of moral, and immoral. And they are as follows:

Billy defines immoral as, "Murdering anyone, any time, any place."

Jimmy defines moral as, "Getting revenge on any person who has done you wrong, by any means possible."

The two are definitions are subjective, not flawed, like I already asserted. Now, to debate one has to use logic. Surely, you can agree it's not logical to argue "apples and oranges."

To sum up, my argument is this:

- The definition of moral/immoral is subjective.
- Your outlook on morality is hard-wired in your brain. No debate will ever make you disagree.
- Therefore, debates are useless, since both sides will never agree.

Would the fundamental disagreement not be at the definition? Surely you can agree that if they both accepted one definition as moral, there would be no need for an argument.

 

Thanks. This will help out.

Do you mean the (dictionary and philosophical) definition of ethics? Well, those are objective.

But, if you mean putting your ethics into practice, it's subjective. For instance, social ethics dictate that one should share with homeless people. But, people don't, some are even hostile towards the homeless people. Therefore, for people to disagree, it must be subjective.

 

He has no argument, he has been flawed numerous times.

 

I may as well also ask, what USEFUL debates aren't subjective? After all, if the answer is objective, measurable, and clear-cut, who needs debate at all?