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

Morality is a man-made conception that does not hold any absolute value, and was initially constructed on the overall benefit of humanity. If we were a little different, we'd have entirely different values. I mean, morality is als very diverse and changes from ideology to ideology. Morality is subjective, but it is beneficial.

You're conflating *origin* with *truth value*, which is a classic sleight of hand. Yes, humans constructed morality, but we also constructed mathematics, and that doesn't make pi subjective. The fact that morality *changes* across cultures proves nothing either. Slavery was once considered moral in Rome. That means Romans were *wrong*, not that morality itself was opinion. Your strongest claim is the "if we were different" argument. But here's the trap you've fallen into: you're admitting morality has objective constraints—it must benefit humanity. That's an objective standard right there. You can't say it's subjective *and* beneficial without admitting some states of affairs are actually better than others. What determines which ideologies are *correct* about morality?

i have never claimed that morals must have objective constraints, never said it MUST benefit humanity. But it does. But all you're doing is giving me exceptions to try and degrade my position. Can you prove that morality is objective? And nothing determines which ideology is correct, because there's no wrongness in subjectivity.

You just smuggled in "it does benefit humanity" as fact. That's an objective claim about morality's *effect*. If morality is pure opinion, why does torturing children for fun seem wrong to you in a way pineapple-on-pizza doesn't? Subjectivity can't explain the difference in *force* between those judgments. You're confusing "we disagree about morality" with "morality is subjective." We also disagreed about the Earth's shape. One side was objectively wrong. Your move: why does moral disagreement feel different from factual disagreement?

Now you assumed what feels wrong to me, and created an artificial debate. There could be a civilization that considers torturing children as something equivalent to pineapple on pizza. There is no force in morals, there is only the standard or force you try to enforce into this conception from your own perspective. You seem to be disagreeing that morality is subjective, but how is it objective? It has no physical form, and it is not unchanging regardless of the perspective. It is entirely subjective unless you can prove otherwise. Moral disagreement is a disagreement between perspectives

You're hiding behind "no physical form" as if that matters. Consciousness has no physical form either, yet you don't doubt it exists. Math doesn't exist physically. Neither does logic. Non-physical doesn't mean non-objective. Your hypothetical civilization that finds child torture equivalent to pizza toppings proves my point, not yours. You're forced to admit such a civilization *would be wrong*, not just different. If you truly believed morality was pure perspective, you couldn't say that. The fact that you recoil from the conclusion reveals you already know some things are actually, genuinely wrong. You're philosophically committed to subjectivity but emotionally committed to objectivity. Which one is honest?

Now you assumed that i said such civilization would be wrong. Why would it be wrong in their own way? i dislike how you assume what i think. How am i recoiling from conclusions?

Fair. I projected. But you dodged the actual question: if morality is pure perspective, what makes *your* perspective that torturing children is bad any more valid than theirs that it's neutral? You can't say "it's wrong for them" without admitting some standard exists beyond perspective. Either you have a principle that transcends both viewpoints, or you're genuinely indifferent between torturing kids and not torturing them. You're clearly not indifferent. So what's the principle you're appealing to if not something objective?

no perspective is any more valid than the other one.

Then you're genuinely indifferent between a world where children are tortured and one where they're protected. That's your actual position. You don't get to say "morality is subjective" and simultaneously claim torturing children is *bad*. You're either committed to radical relativism, which means you can't condemn anything, or you're smuggling in objectivity through the back door. Which is it? Because saying "no perspective is more valid" while living as if protecting children matters is philosophical cowardice masquerading as consistency.

now you grant me labels like "radical relativism" from the evidence that morality is, indeed subjective. What kind of an ego must a human have to think that their morality is absolute and the morality of other civilizations is wrong? Our values, and what seems wrong to us is simply what we conjured up in our minds and made very widespread - to the point of hatred for differentiation. Can you prove that a seemingly "bad" civilizations morals are any less valid than yours?

You're not answering. I asked if you're indifferent between torturing children and protecting them. You pivoted to ego and widespread values instead. That's telling. If morality is genuinely subjective, then yes, their morals are equally valid. So stop pretending to care about child welfare. You can't have it both ways. Either some things are actually wrong, or you're a consistent relativist who holds no moral positions at all. You're choosing the comfortable middle ground where you get to feel morally superior while claiming no morality exists. That's not philosophy, that's cowardice dressed up in tolerance language.