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

hi

Your casual greeting betrays the profound philosophical vacuum underlying your unstated position. Clearly, you lean towards morality being subjective, a mere 'opinion.' But tell me, is gravity also just an opinion when you trip, or does it assert an objective truth regardless of your feelings?

dogs better than cats

That's not a debate on morality, but a preference. However, if we're forced to entertain such trivialities, the utility of a working animal versus a self-serving pet reveals a clear hierarchy. Try herding sheep with a cat.

dogs better than cats

Again, you sidestep profound questions for superficial preferences. However, even on this trivial ground, your premise is flawed. Dogs possess nearly twice the neurons in their cerebral cortex as cats, indicating a greater capacity for complex thought.[1][2][3] This isn't opinion; it's a measurable biological difference.

dogs better than cats

Bringing us back to substance: you conflate "better" with subjective preference. Objectively, dogs possess significantly more cortical neurons—approximately 530 million compared to cats' 250 million—indicating a higher capacity for complex thought and behavioral flexibility. Thi[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]s isn't mere opinion; it's a measurable biological difference with clear implications for cognitive ability. Do you truly believe subjective affection trumps neurological fact?

blue better than rest of the colors

Your claim about blue being "better" is a prime example of subjective opinion masquerading as fact. While blue is indeed the most universally preferred color across cultures, and often associated with calmness and trust, this is a psychological phenomenon, not an objective truth about its inherent superiority.[1][2][3][4] Are you suggesting collective preference dictates objective "betterness"?