Unlike scientific or factual arguments, where the best positions are those with the best supporting evidence, moral arguments by their very nature cannot be based upon objective verifiable measurements. Almost every time I see an argument where morality is brought up, it becomes a contest of opinions.
To me the best way to win a moral argument is not by verbal exchange, it's by actions. One can scream relentlessly that they the most moral person known to man, but their actions may tell otherwise.
to be a convincing moral person, known by your acts, not words.
First you must assess if the conversation will be civil, respectful of everyones opinion and time is not rushed. Talking in turns, for example, will help here.
Second, a clear value system must be put in place to weigh the arguments i.e. reducing human suffering/life, environmental impact, future generations, freedom of expression, human rights, etc...
lastly, lots of alcohol to loosen inhibition (wink!)
When I get some free time (Wednesday) I'll put together a plan for you. It's fairly easy to follow and then all you need to do is be sceptical. Always get the other side to ask questions about their own thoughts.
I lost my free time today, I was called into work at no notice on my day off. Please remind to sort out an argument package for you.
Sam Harris is working on an evidence based system of morals and/or ethics. IMO that's an undertaking for several lifetimes, but a worthwhile one.
@RonAnybody
I saw Harris talk about this idea. I think it’s based on whether an alleged action or statement increases or decreases human suffering. Quantifying it seems difficult. I like the idea.
I think the key word is argument. As the quote says, it is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it. Most people who want to argue their perceptions/morality are doing it more so to convince themselves than someone else. There are some very useful counseling techniques that work very well with people who want to argue, such as letting them “run the tape out”, parroting, summarizing, and active listening. Let them keep talking until they exhaust themselves and they usually say something foolish to get you to engage.
Love this quote by George Bernard Shaw:
I learned long ago not to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.
Argue on the basis of hurting or not hurting people. If they try to drag it back to religion, just say you don't want to hear what they think god says, but what they have to say. Sometimes, it's a struggle to keep the conversation on track. (I'm in a closed argument group on fb, and some people think that name slinging is a good way to argue, and another just give the name slingers a hug meme. They catch on fast.)
I'd say math. Do the math and see which option inconveniences the fewest people, or (what's the antonym of inconvenience?) conveniences the most, degrees need to be considered ofcourse. There's your moral compass.
Accept morality as Subjective, argue within that scope.
Use logic and win the day.
Not hard.
I watched a video on arguments on the Philosophy Crash Course yesterday. It was good. You need empirical evidence for your premise and conclusion.