Debate With a Moral Subjectivist

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungCatholic86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YoungCatholic86

Guest
This is a long one. I recently got into a debate with an friend of mine about whether morality is objective or subjective. It started out by us debating whether or not abortion is justifiable or not. I stated that if terminating a child in the womb is justifiable then terminating an adult is just as justifiable because it may be an “inconvenience.” He then stated that that is even justifiable because morals cannot be observed and because all people do not believe in the same infinite reference point (God) with which to base their action. I believe I had made some good points but I am not sure entirely how to convince him of objective truth regarding morality. By the way, he is an atheist if you haven’t guessed so biblical proofs will not work. Any points that anyone recommends I make?
 
I think it would be good to mention the difference between defense and convenience.
We have a right to use lethal means if necessary in self defense (survival/existing/having life), but not in the name of “convenience” (having an easy life).

I would hope that he would find it absurd if a motorist willfully ran over pedestrians, just because they were “inconvenient” to the driver (or vice versa).

Since being merely inconvenient is not a fatal crime, killing that life in response cannot be justified.

The permanent punishment of death does not match the (likely temporary) so-called crime of inconvenience.

I hope this helps!
 
If there is no objective truth in reference to moral decision-making then anything that he recommends is only relative and therefore can be discounted by anyone who suggests something different. So, it is then reasonable to suggest that it would be morally justifiable to kill your friend on the simple basis of your disagreement. Now this is absurd but it brings to the forefront the absurdness of his reasoning. Without objective truth then there really exists no truth; only a bunch of individuals rationalizing their behaviors. So, in closing, when one purports such an idea then that idea refutes itself since there is no basis for his reasoning other than his own discernment. If you disagree then you proved to him that subjective truth proved him wrong… God bless you and keep up the good work.
 
YoungCatholic86 said:
This is a long one. I recently got into a debate with an friend of mine about whether morality is objective or subjective. It started out by us debating whether or not abortion is justifiable or not. I stated that if terminating a child in the womb is justifiable then terminating an adult is just as justifiable because it may be an “inconvenience.” He then stated that that is even justifiable because morals cannot be observed and because all people do not believe in the same infinite reference point (God) with which to base their action. I believe I had made some good points but I am not sure entirely how to convince him of objective truth regarding morality. By the way, he is an atheist if you haven’t guessed so biblical proofs will not work. Any points that anyone recommends I make?
Click to expand...
You’re asking how to reason with someone who thinks it’s OK to commit murder.

There’s no reasoning with this person. He’s lost.
 
For you to convince your friend that any action or thought is “right” or “wrong,” you would first have to convince him to accept an “infinite reference point;” without the foundation of such a starting point, the concept of morality crumbles into nothingness. In regards to teachccd’s comment, making your friend’s argument “absurd” would not effectively invalidate his position; if a person makes an argument that being “inconvenient” is suitable cause for wrongful death, then it would hold true for both unborn and adult scenarios (however horrifying that would play out in reality). As well, disagreeing with the claim that there is no “objective truth” does not actually invalidate that claim against it; would a disagreement with the idea of “objective truth” existing invalidate its existence?
 
If he’s a moral subjectivist, ask him if it’s morally superior to believe in moral subjectivism. Any answer presupposes some kind of moral standard. If it is not morally superior, ask him why anyone should believe in it. He’ll probably say, “Because it’s true.” But that assumes it’s better to believe the truth than a lie.

Also google Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation of Moral Relativism.
 
sw85 said:
You’re asking how to reason with someone who thinks it’s OK to commit murder.

There’s no reasoning with this person. He’s lost.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I’d agree. However, maybe God will change his heart at some point.
It’s difficult to get someone to reason from a moral subjectivity background, but you might suggest that he evaluates nature. Does one receive natural consequences or rewards for certain actions?
 
YoungCatholic86 said:
This is a long one. I recently got into a debate with an friend of mine about whether morality is objective or subjective. It started out by us debating whether or not abortion is justifiable or not. I stated that if terminating a child in the womb is justifiable then terminating an adult is just as justifiable because it may be an “inconvenience.” He then stated that that is even justifiable because morals cannot be observed and because all people do not believe in the same infinite reference point (God) with which to base their action. I believe I had made some good points but I am not sure entirely how to convince him of objective truth regarding morality. By the way, he is an atheist if you haven’t guessed so biblical proofs will not work. Any points that anyone recommends I make?
Click to expand...
you lost that argument because you let him define the reference point as God. never let the other side define parameters or provide definitions, if possible.

you should have told him you planned on burning down your neighbor’s house at 2.00am because there are Jews hiding in the basement and asked him if his instinct tells him whether that’s moral or not. if he says its against the law tell him legalism is for sheep. if he has no opinion or says its subjectively ok, then he’s a psychopath.

ProTip: an experienced debate would run circles around your abortion example. you should really get a firm grasp on how pro-choice people see this, and not in the cartoony way you’d get here.
 
Some of the post above is pretty sound advice. It is important to recognize that some individuals have the ability to discuss theoretically horrific things (like genocide) with intellectualized detachment; it does not make one a sociopath or psychopath to be able to discuss mass killing in an informal debate centered around logic and not emotional response (especially if it is a hypothetical and not a discussion of actual murders). Hypothetical examples dealing with sociobiological issues tend not to be very strong in a debate such as this; if he has an interest in such topics, asking him about his instinctual reaction to violent crimes will lead to a discussion of the biological origins of these “instincts” and you won’t get any further than “God made/guided the evolution of man” (which will prompt a request for proof through logic or fact, and you’ll have to say that you have none or try to use religious tradition/texts as proof [which will inevitably end up with answering “faith” or the like when the information in tradition/Bible cannot be validated as more than a piece of religious mythology]). As for the argument for/against abortion, it all boils down to two arguments: when do human offspring become legally entitled to protection by the state and when is murder justifiable. The latter is easier than the first due to legal precedent (self-defense laws and the like) but relies upon the former for its validity (wherein neither side of the argument has a real leg up against the other in terms of logic in establishing a rule for the official, legal beginning of human life, though I am a proponent of defining life at conception).
 
Just think of all the money spent on police, the courts, the jails, lawyers, parole officers, etc, etc. We all know why that is. The important thing is to get it straight oneself and pass the message on. After that it’s up to the other person. Or am I being too cynical?
 
gnfd92 said:
Some of the post above is pretty sound advice. It is important to recognize that some individuals have the ability to discuss theoretically horrific things (like genocide) with intellectualized detachment; it does not make one a sociopath or psychopath to be able to discuss mass killing in an informal debate centered around logic and not emotional response (especially if it is a hypothetical and not a discussion of actual murders). Hypothetical examples dealing with sociobiological issues tend not to be very strong in a debate such as this; if he has an interest in such topics, asking him about his instinctual reaction to violent crimes will lead to a discussion of the biological origins of these “instincts” and you won’t get any further than “God made/guided the evolution of man” (which will prompt a request for proof through logic or fact, and you’ll have to say that you have none or try to use religious tradition/texts as proof [which will inevitably end up with answering “faith” or the like when the information in tradition/Bible cannot be validated as more than a piece of religious mythology]). As for the argument for/against abortion, it all boils down to two arguments: when do human offspring become legally entitled to protection by the state and when is murder justifiable. The latter is easier than the first due to legal precedent (self-defense laws and the like) but relies upon the former for its validity (wherein neither side of the argument has a real leg up against the other in terms of logic in establishing a rule for the official, legal beginning of human life, though I am a proponent of defining life at conception).
Click to expand...
I’m used to debating, in a way, for a specific audience for a specific goal, because that’s what debate means in the world outside of academia and the internets. getting the other side to adopt the views of a psychopath to defend a belief is a good way to turn a jury against him. or her. the chances of getting any advocate to back down from a position are slim and none, with slim out for coffee, but you can always convince the observers.

on abortion. murder is never justifiable. homicide at times, but not murder. an informed abortion advocate would not allow you to posit the issue that way, correctly pointing out that in using terms like “murder” or even “homicide” you’re engaging in circular reasoning. the issue – putting it as neutrally as possible – is, when does the state’s interest in protecting the unborn trump parental rights.

we pro-lifers will lose this battle unless we’re better informed factually and legally and better real world advocates than our opponents.
 
Fairwinds said:
I’m used to debating, in a way, for a specific audience for a specific goal, because that’s what debate means in the world outside of academia and the internets. getting the other side to adopt the views of a psychopath to defend a belief is a good way to turn a jury against him. or her. the chances of getting any advocate to back down from a position are slim and none, with slim out for coffee, but you can always convince the observers.

on abortion. murder is never justifiable. homicide at times, but not murder. an informed abortion advocate would not allow you to posit the issue that way, correctly pointing out that in using terms like “murder” or even “homicide” you’re engaging in circular reasoning. the issue – putting it as neutrally as possible – is, when does the state’s interest in protecting the unborn trump parental rights.

we pro-lifers will lose this battle unless we’re better informed factually and legally and better real world advocates than our opponents.
Click to expand...
I’m also very interested in debate, as well as pro-life. Thanks for your insight.
 
Would the OP be able to have non-persuasive discourse with the other person? Would a simple discussion possibly plant a seed where persuasive argument may leave hardened ground?

It is important to be able to eloquently and logically explain a position, but one also should be able to judge an audience. Sometimes trying to change someone can shut a door, when simple conversation may allow light to be seen through the open doorway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top