Is morality objective or just opinion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is morality objective or just opinion?". Your opponent's style: Friedrich Nietzsche

I feel as though morality is an opinion, however we as humans have objectively decided that certain things were deemed moral or immoral based on our emotions.

You've just admitted morality isn't objective—you called it an opinion. Then you contradicted yourself by saying we "objectively decided" things based on emotions. Emotions aren't objective. They're subjective by definition. You can't ground morality in subjective feelings and then claim objectivity. That's circular reasoning. If morality is just collective emotion, then slavery was moral when most societies endorsed it. Are you willing to accept that, or does your intuition scream that slavery was always wrong regardless of what anyone felt? That intuition suggests morality transcends opinion. Which is it?

I do see what you mean, I will concede to the fact that morality is subjective

Wrong move. You're surrendering too fast. If morality is purely subjective, then your claim that slavery is wrong is just your opinion versus a slaveowner's opinion. No basis to call them immoral, only different. You've now lost the ability to condemn anything universally. Child abuse? Just someone's preference. Genocide? Merely a disagreement. You can't live that way consistently. Most people intuitively believe some acts are genuinely wrong, not just unpopular. That intuition points toward objectivity. Subjectivism collapses the moment you try to actually judge anyone. So either morality is objective, or you admit you can't condemn the worst human actions. Pick one.

yes but that is what subjectivism is. We as humans choose to decided what is right and what is wrong

Exactly, and that's the trap. If humans choose what's right, then humans could choose differently tomorrow and it becomes right. Nazi Germany chose genocide as moral. By your logic, it was moral for them. You can't escape this by saying "most of us disagree now." Majority opinion isn't objectivity, it's just tyranny of the majority. And if morality depends on what we choose, then you have no grounds to say future generations are wrong if they legalize torture or enslave people based on arbitrary traits. You're left defending moral relativism where nothing is truly wrong, only unpopular. Does that actually match how you live?

Yes, exactly. It was moral for them. We decide on what is right and wrong- that is what morality is. We cannot objectively say that one person's morals are "correct" or "incorrect". For example, in my opinion, slavery was and IS wrong, however, to another person, slavery may be a great idea. THAT is subjectivism and morality is one of those subjective topics.

You just proved objectivity exists. You said slavery "IS wrong"—present tense, universal. Not "I dislike it" or "my culture rejects it." You claimed it's actually wrong. That's an objective claim. If you truly believed subjectivism, you'd say "I think slavery is wrong, but someone else might think it's right, and neither view is more correct." You don't believe that. You believe slavery is genuinely, objectively immoral regardless of who approves. Your own language betrays you. Subjectivism sounds sophisticated until you actually commit to it. Then you realize you can't live it. You believe some things are truly wrong. That's objectivity calling.

That is why I said, "in my opinion". You are misinterpreting what I said as well as misconstruing my words. I said that I believe slavery IS wrong, another person may say the opposite. That is what I said in my previous argument. Also, when you say "You believe some things are truly wrong", you are basically conceding to my point. Yes, I believe that some things are truly wrong however, another person could believe those things are truly right.

You're hiding behind "in my opinion" to avoid the hard question. If slavery is wrong only in your opinion, then you can't criticize someone who genuinely believes it's right. You're pretending symmetry exists where none does. But you don't actually treat slavery that way. You don't say "well, they have their truth, we have ours." You judge them as objectively mistaken. That judgment requires objectivity. Yes, people disagree on morality. But disagreement doesn't prove subjectivity—it proves some people are wrong. People disagree on whether the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make flatness subjective. Your inability to force agreement doesn't equal truth being absent. Why do you care what others believe if morality is just opinion?