Is morality objective or just opinion?

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

How can we claim objectivity for something that cannot be proven by any evidence or experiment? It is clear that we make decisions that suit our nature and then put them into a general formula in order to impose them on others.

You're conflating "unprovable by experiment" with "not objective," but that's a category error. Mathematical truths can't be tested experimentally either, yet they're objectively true. Your real claim is that morality *feels* subjective because we can't measure it. But feelings about a thing's nature don't determine its actual nature. What makes you certain our inability to *prove* something means it doesn't exist?

My argument wasn't limited to criticizing the inability to conduct an experiment to test a moral theory; I also addressed the lack of any proof I could use to establish it. If none of our tools are sufficient to determine morality, how can we claim objectivity? Even if we say that the absence of evidence doesn't mean the absence of evidence, that doesn't make morality objective, as if you were incapable of proving it to be anything more than a possibility.

You're smuggling in a false standard: "unprovable to *us*" doesn't mean "not objective." A moral fact could exist independently of our ability to access it, just like the number of stars existed before telescopes. Your real move is demanding that objectivity require *our* proof, but objectivity is about whether something exists outside our opinions, not whether we can verify it. If morality depends on what we can currently demonstrate, then math isn't objective either. Why should consciousness be the measure of reality?

It depends on the type of case and the evidence we are discussing. In our context here, I can say yes, there is a difference between a moral value and a hidden devil.

You're dodging the real question. You conceded that unprovable things can exist objectively, but now you're just asserting morality is different without explaining why. What separates a moral fact from a mathematical one if both resist your experiment test?

You ignore the debate about whether mathematics is testable or not, then you dismiss one theory while ignoring opposing theories. Similarly, you said that ethics can be like mathematics, yet you haven't justified this yet. In mathematics, I can create models governed by laws that can be analyzed into fundamental principles necessary for all knowledge, whereas ethics cannot be analyzed into the basic beliefs we use in matters of certainty.

You just admitted mathematics works because we can reduce it to necessary principles, yet you haven't shown ethics *can't* do the same. Philosophers from Kant to utilitarians have attempted exactly that reduction. You're treating the difficulty of moral analysis as proof of its impossibility, but that's lazy. If mathematics required centuries to formalize and we still debate its foundations, why should ethics be instantly reducible to satisfy your standard? What makes *your* certainty requirement the arbiter of objectivity?