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

My understanding of morality is that it is a natural social instinct developed by certain creatures in order to survive. Early humans (for example) are believed to have developed moral beliefs in order to benefit from the community. By this I mean, humans have emotional reactions towards negative things like murder because it originated from humans not wanting to murder those around them. Less people = no help to survive. Not murdering people = more people to help survive. My question to you is, what is objective morality?

You've described morality's *origin*, not its nature—and that's precisely where your argument collapses. Yes, we evolved moral instincts for survival. But evolution also gave us the instinct to rape, murder, and hoard. We don't call those *objective truths*—we call them impulses we override. If morality is merely survival strategy, then slavery was morally *correct* in Rome. Genocide was morally *correct* in 1940s Germany. Both enhanced group power. Yet you recoil from this conclusion because something in you knows they were *wrong*—truly, actually wrong, not just "disadvantageous to *my* tribe." That revulsion? That's objectivity calling. Morality transcends survival calculus.

Your claim collapses by your own standards. You say morality is "objective" because we feel deep down those terrible events such as the Holocaust or the era of slavery were wrong and yet they happened anyway. You have failed to define what objective morality is, it means we all have the same values, but we don't. This is clear to us because the Holocaust did happen. This is clear to us because slavery occurred. If we all were "revulsed" by the idea of the consequences of those things, they would have never happened. And another thing, you're assuming the extreme consequences of my argument without giving any evidence that that is explicitly where subjective morality leads. This is classic "if morality isn't objective, we'd all rape and murder each other" which is absolutely false. I made a point by stating the origin of morals. Social instincts are built from simplistic ideals much like everything started from simplistic things. Originally, we didn't murder because it would've negatively impacted our survival chances, but as we evolved so did this ideal. The want to be secure and safe turned into a deep rewire of our system. The same reason mothers don't just abandon their babies. It stems from a natural instinct which is why sometimes it's not present. Nature is messy, nature is chaotic. To say our morals are objective is to say there is an overall power above humans. This is metaphysical. I'm not here to argue fantasy I'm here to argue reality.

You've just proven objectivity exists. You say "the Holocaust was *wrong*"—not "wrong for me" or "wrong for my tribe." Wrong, period. If morality were subjective opinion like ice cream preference, you couldn't call the Nazis *wrong*. You could only say "different taste." But you won't accept that. Neither will anyone. We all speak as though moral truths exist independent of our feelings about them. Nature being "messy" doesn't make morality subjective—it makes objectivity *harder to access*. Mathematics exists objectively even though most people fail algebra. The fact that some mothers abandon babies doesn't erase what motherhood *should* be. You're arguing against your own conviction.

But it is. My point is that while the holocaust for mine and your perspective is wrong, Hitler's perspective was most definitely the opposite. A serial killer doesn't feel bad about the murders they committed even though the rest of us do. This is the definition of subjectivity. We define our own morality based on the biological nature of our bodies, not some cosmic rule books some of us choose to follow. You say things like we need to access objectivity, and that some people don't fit the bill for objectivity but that's not how that works. If a mother decided to abandon her child, she chooses that through her own convictions. If objective morality exists no one should be able to fall away from it. You're proving my point by stating how people can and do make their own choices. These choices which are fueled by subjective beliefs.

Wrong. A serial killer's *belief* that murder is fine doesn't make murder *fine*—it makes him *wrong*. People disagree about objective facts constantly. Some think the earth is flat. That doesn't make flatness subjective. You're confusing "people disagree" with "there is no truth." Hitler was objectively mistaken about Jews, just as the flat-earther is mistaken about geometry. Your own logic destroys you: if morality is purely subjective opinion, why do you *condemn* Hitler instead of just saying "different preference"? You're claiming objective wrongness while denying objectivity exists. You can't have it both ways.

You have yet to describe what these "objective" beliefs are. I stated the origins of moral beliefs, but you have yet to explain who decides what is right or wrong. For something to be objective means there has to be a system above humanity that implements the moral values. You're examples for your argument don't even work in these situations. Yes, flat earthers believe the earth is flat, yes, we know they are wrong, but this is not an objective moral truth, this a scientific fact. Hitler was only "objectively" mistaken because the majority of people were not in Nazi Germany or Hitler. But nazis and Hitler continued to do what they wanted because their beliefs are subjective. It's not about whether or not they "fit" into the category of something you refuse to define, it's about whether or not they made a choice different to our own. They did. We condemned it, they praised it. Not because they "fall out of the norm" but because there is no norm, thus morality can be shifted by perspective. I can say that Hitler was wrong because my personal belief is that what Hitler did was utterly disgusting, but again others don't believe exactly what I believe because there's no objective truth. I ask you where do these objective morals come from?

You're demanding I name God to prove objectivity exists. I won't, because I don't need to. Objective facts don't require a cosmic lawgiver. Mathematical truths exist without a divine accountant. The fact that two plus two equals four is objective—it constrains reality regardless of belief. Suffering is objectively bad. Flourishing is objectively good. These aren't opinions—they're features of conscious experience itself. A tortured child experiences genuine harm, not subjective preference. That harm is real whether Hitler believed it or not. Your position requires this absurdity: if I personally believed torturing your family brought me joy, you couldn't call me *wrong*—only "different." You don't actually believe that.