The Instigator
charles15
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

A Strictly Atheistic World View Can Not Account For Morality.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 16 votes the winner is...
Metz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,517 times Debate No: 7365
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (48)
Votes (16)

 

charles15

Pro

Thank you, to whoever accepts this challenge, I look forward to this debate.

Now, to start off, I will go over some definitions.

Morality: [conformity to the rules of right conduct]
Evil: [morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked]
Right: [in accordance with what is good, proper, or just]
Atheist: [a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.]
Theist: [the belief in one God (in this debate I am referring to the Christian God) as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation]

http://dictionary.reference.com...

To begin with, what makes something wrong or right? The law of a specific nation? Yourself? This question was simple when we were kids, for instance if John hit Sue then John was wrong and then gets in trouble. But as we get older this topic becomes more complicated. For instance, who said it was wrong for John to hit Sue? Who said it was wrong for someone to steal, cheat, lie, murder, torture, rape? The point is, in some cultures its acceptable and even encouraged to do these things. Just look at Hitler, Stalin or any other evil dictator/government. Anyone can read about the trattorias acts that have been accurately recorded through out history. But here's the thing, all these men committed terrible acts without believing that they themselves were 'wrong.' For example, Hitler murdered 10 million people for ethnic cleansing reasons, and through out his entire life as ruler over Germany, never once thought he was doing an immoral act. In fact, he believed he was doing just the opposite, Hitler thought, that through killing 10 million people he was "glorifying the Father Land" and doing the world a huge favor. Plus, Hitler not only was evil himself, but he had a whole nation behind him. Millions swore true allegiance to him, and his ideas.

Now, given the above paragraph, it is impossible to say that Hitler's actions were immoral under an Atheistic world view. Why? Because in an Atheistic world view there is no God to judge such acts. The only thing that can judge Hitler in an Atheistic world are other people, but what if every single person on the planet became a Nazi. So there must be an ultimate judge, or over seer, in order for Hitler's actions to be held accountable.

So, if one wants to debate that morality is defined by the law of a specific nation, or ones ability to justify there own actions, then the voters and my oppenent should be able to see clearly that an Atheistic world view can not account for morality.

Please answer the following questions in your next argument.

How can Atheism account for morality? And what will you base you morality off of, if not God?
Metz

Con

This should be an interesting debate.... I love this sort of debate, ie. what are morals and why do we have them sort of thing

"Because in an Atheistic world view there is no God to judge such acts. The only thing that can judge Hitler in an Atheistic world are other people, but what if every single person on the planet became a Nazi."

First If everyone was a Nazi there would be no problem with Nazism because they wouldn't have a WW2 Repeat due to the fact that everyone would agree....

Second the people/self being the judge is what I am arguing. The Ultimate judge is humanity. The concept of the Other best applies here. When we look at another acting, we judge them. When we look at ourselves acting the same way, we remember that judgment. We don't have to actually see someone else, but imagine that there is that Other judging us. Also if we look to the roots of morality we don't find God, but humanity. Why is it immoral to kill? Because if it was allowed then people would freely kill us. If we look at what we would think had we seen the event happen, or been the recipient, we will agree that the event is bad. From All this we can take morality to really be a golden rule of sorts. Judge ourselves as we would judge others. Do to others as we would have done to ourselves. Neither of these concepts require God, in fact they function just as well with a God as without.

"How can Atheism account for morality? And what will you base you morality off of, if not God?"
I have already sort of answered this but I will do it again for sake of order and clarity. Atheism accounts for morality via Humanity. The roots of our morals exist in an atheist society, they were created not by God but by human conscience and need for order and safety. I don't want to retype the explanation of the Other(which was admittedly pretty bad) but that is a general concept of how atheism can account for and provide a base for morality. The golden rule is another base for morality. Morals Exist for human safety primarily. Why is it immoral to kill? because we don't want to be killed.

God is not the source of Morals, and therefore an atheistic world view can account for morals just as well as a theistic world view can.
Debate Round No. 1
charles15

Pro

Thanks for your response.

Metz said, "Second the people/self being the judge is what I am arguing. The Ultimate judge is humanity."

To say that humanity is the ultimate judge is not saying anything. For instance, in one part of the world it may be morally acceptable to murder your wife if she disobeys her husband. In another part of the world that particular act may be unacceptable. But, which view of the issue is right? Who decides it? The point is, that to base what is considered right or wrong off humanity is ridiculous, since humanity can not agree on an absolute, universal view of what is considered moral or immoral. Since this is true anything could be acceptable, such as murder, rape, lying cheating, abusing, drugs ect... Why? Again, because morality is totally arbitrary under the jurisdiction of humanity, since all humans have different standards of morals. And since all humans have different standards on morals, then this just illustrates my point, there must be a God to judge people's actions. In an Atheistic world there are no absolutes for morals.

Also, if there are seven hundred billion people on the planet and half say gay marriage is right but the other half say gay marriage is wrong, then who decides? What makes one view right and the other wrong? This question can not be answered in an Atheistic universe, since all the opinions given by the people are different. So, humanity, can not, on it's own make a rational decision, dealing with morality. This is why there must be an objective standard for people to base their judgement off of. Again, under an Atheistic world view morals can not be accounted for.

"Why is it immoral to kill? Because if it was allowed then people would freely kill us."

What about the people who could care less about whether or not death is a reaction of killing another person. For instance, a man could be very enraged at a particular moment, so, what if he decides to kill everyone in the town regardless of wether he dies that day or lives, in the process of committing all the murders he can. Not only that flaw, but there are people who murder people all the time without getting caught, or getting killed back in the process. So for these murderers there is no incentive what so ever for them to not go out and murder another human being.

Plus, saying that its immoral to murder because you will get murdered back is not even answering the question of why it is immoral to murder another human being. You need to tell me why murder is wrong in the first place.

Metz said "Do to others as we would have done to ourselves."

Its amazing how Atheists think, they will always claim there world has morals, and do things such as feed the poor and help many in need ect... These are all good things, its just the principles in which these acts are found, are in the Bible. You see, Atheists take morals from the Christian world view but do not acknowledge the basis of which those morals came from, which is ultimately God. Now I'm not saying that all of the morals in an Atheistic world view are taken from Christianity, but a lot of them are, Along with many other religions that acknowledge the presence of a god.

Metz said, "Also if we look to the roots of morality we don't find God, but humanity."

Prove to me that we find humanity, don't just say it, prove it or at least tell expand on that reasoning. I do not agree with that statement at all and until you try to prove it it is just your word against mine. Which is exactly what an atheistic world view consists of, one man's word against another, which is no absolutes or universal ideas

I also encourage the voters to check out this link, it will help illustrate my point.

Thank you
charles 15

Good Luck
Metz

Con

"To say that humanity is the ultimate judge is not saying anything. For instance, in one part of the world it may be morally acceptable to murder your wife if she disobeys her husband. In another part of the world that particular act may be unacceptable. But, which view of the issue is right? Who decides it? The point is, that to base what is considered right or wrong off humanity is ridiculous, since humanity can not agree on an absolute, universal view of what is considered moral or immoral."

But this accounts for morality... it just doesn't account for my opponents version of morality. Also this really doesn't say why Theism can actually account for universal morals. People disagree on religion. If Morals were universal then the scenario my opponent laid out wouldn't exist. But yet he claimed it does.... So what my opponent is essentially arguing is that Morality doesn't work.

"In an Atheistic world there are no absolutes for morals."

Ok... Same thing in a Theist world. But lets look at the topic for a moment shall we? It never says Atheism needs to account for universal morals, just morals. This really doesn't attack my case at all. The Definition of Morality my opponent gives is "conformity to the rules of right conduct" But it never says these rules must be universal. If we have laws they do not hold everyone accountable worldwide, likewise morality doesn't have to be universal.

"Again, because morality is totally arbitrary under the jurisdiction of humanity, since all humans have different standards of morals."

That is how I argue we can account for morality. If we want to find acceptable morality we need people to disagree, this is how democracy works and how morality would inevitable work. And yet again, Theism is different how?

"Also, if there are seven hundred billion people on the planet and half say gay marriage is right but the other half say gay marriage is wrong, then who decides? What makes one view right and the other wrong? This question can not be answered in an Atheistic universe, since all the opinions given by the people are different. So, humanity, can not, on it's own make a rational decision, dealing with morality."

Oh yeah... and God is doing so much better? The reason so many people disagree is primarily religion...granted there are other factors but religion and tradition are massive players.

"So, humanity, can not, on it's own make a rational decision, dealing with morality"

Well actually we live in a largely theist world... so what you meant to say was " So, God and religion cannot make a rational decision dealing with morality"

"This is why there must be an objective standard for people to base their judgement off of"

yeah, its called survival mate.... people see other and judge themselves... People tell others that a certain action is wrong because they don't want what they see done to other done to themselves...

"You need to tell me why murder is wrong in the first place."

Its wrong because people say its wrong... you essentially made my argument for me there; "its immoral to murder because you will get murdered back" it isn't moral to Murder because you are ending that persons existence. I don't want to end my existence so I tell people that it is wrong to kill. If I wanted to be killed would I say it is wrong to kill?

"You see, Atheists take morals from the Christian world view but do not acknowledge the basis of which those morals came from, which is ultimately God"

Um... Alright... The First appearance of the golden rule was I believe in the Analects of Confucious... Not the bible. Also it really doesn't matter where the Morals came from as long as an Atheist world can account for them... I personally have a justification for all my moral opinions that has nothing to do with god but with how I perceive humans.

"Metz said, "Also if we look to the roots of morality we don't find God, but humanity."
Prove to me that we find humanity, don't just say it, prove it or at least tell expand on that reasoning."

That I will be glad to do.... Name any generally accepted moral principle and I will show how it can be traced back to humanity. Also my opponent again makes the mistake of saying Atheism cannot account for UNIVERSAL MORALS, but sadly neither can Thiesm as we have seen and that is not the subject of this debate.

Lets do an example of morality being human using the Moral principle that killing is wrong.

1. Humans don't want to be killed
2. People, as a general rule, want to do what they feel is right.
3. Therefore people(in general), because they don't want to be killed, have said that killing is wrong
4. Therefore it is generally accepted among people killing is wrong
5. Hence killing is considered an Immoral Act.

Justification behind 1-5.

1. The Urge for Survival in all things is primary, it has been seen through the existence of life
2. The concept of the conscious tells us that we want to do the right thing. So people are deterred by the idea that what they may be doing is wrong.
3. Combination of 1&2 plus the fact that people made this decree to create the deterrence I mentioned in 2
4. A summary of 4 as a general rule
5. Putting the concept of right/wrong into Morals

Thank you,
Matt

Good luck to my opponent, and I urge everyone to look critically at all arguments
Debate Round No. 2
charles15

Pro

Metz said, "Also this really doesn't say why Theism can actually account for universal morals. People disagree on religion. If Morals were universal then the scenario my opponent laid out wouldn't exist."

I thought I made this clear in my opening statement: the God I am referring to is the Christian God. So, when you say that a theistic world view can not account for morality, because of all the different religions, then yes I would agree with you, because if there are many different religions that judge humans, then there would not be one standard to which morality is based upon. So, when I mention God I am only referring to the Christian God. Now that my view on the issue has been restated, any argument used by Metz (con), about why a theistic universe can not account for morality either; because of all the different God's derived from different religions, will be irrelevant. Since I am only referring to One religion, which is Christianity. And since there is just one God then there is only one moral standard, thus God can account for what is wrong or right.

"It never says Atheism needs to account for universal morals, just morals."

Okay, lets have it Metz's way, Atheism does not need to account for universal laws, just morals in general, very well. If there are no universal morals that prohibit certain acts of crime such as rape, murder, polygamy, theft, ect... then why am I obligated to obey those morals? Why can't I just abide by my own moral standards, since there are know Universal ones? For instance, I could think that its just fine to murder, rape, steal ect... because that's what I believe is right. So if there are just MORALS, to be defined by anybody, and no UNIVERSAL MORALS then who is to say that my morals are wrong? Whose to say anything is wrong for that matter? Once again the argument for an Atheistic world view on morals collapses on itself because it can not account for what is truly right or wrong.

Metz said, "Its wrong because people say its wrong..." this quote is in response to me asking why murder is wrong.

So are you saying that if the majority of the human population say that gays should not be aloud to marry, then that is automatically the moral standard? This is exactly my point, if a moral act is defined by what people say is moral then anything from the act of murder to a little white lie must be accepted by humanity. For instance, I could say murder is right because I said so. Also, a real life example is, 'people' started 'saying' that Jews should be considered sub human and thrown into concentration camps, but did this make it right? No, of course not. You see, I can say that Hitler was wrong because God commands it in the Bible, "thall shall not murder," its the 6th commandment. But, the best that my opponent can say, is, "Hitler's acts of genocide were immoral because the Jews were being murdered against there own will." Well, my opponent's statement just begs the question, So? Who says the Jews have a right to live in the first place? After all, millions were saying that Jews did not have the right to live. So which side is right, and why? For, to simply say that Hitler was wrong because he murdered Jews against there will is NOT answering the WHY? It only states a mere fact.

Another example, John Locke, a well known philosopher who came up with idea of the Social Contract, this contract was to ensure that every human being was born with the right to live. Now, the question I have for Locke's thinking, along with anyone else who agrees with him, is this, WHY? Why are humans born with the right to live? I do not see a logical answer without God in the equation.

1. Humans don't want to be killed.
2. People, as a general rule, want to do what they feel is right.
3. Therefore people(in general), because they don't want to be killed, have said that killing is wrong
4. Therefore it is generally accepted among people killing is wrong
5. Hence killing is considered an Immoral Act.

Again, not only does this example have nothing to do with WHY murder is wrong. But, what you have described here is Western Civilization for the past 200 years or so, ONLY. This certainly is not the case in the Philippines, the Middle East, or any other extremely violent area in the world. This totally disproves your point above. And not only that, but what about in past history, such as the Dark Ages where many people considered murder to be a normal act, in order to get food or money so they could fill there bellies. So, when murder became an act that was generally accepted among the people, such as in the Philippines, the Middle East, and any other extremely violent areas in the world or from times in the past, such as the Dark Ages, is it then morally acceptable to murder? I see no reason why not, under an Atheistic universe.

In conclusion, I still believe that my opponent has failed to answer the why for his reasoning? For instance, everyone knows that people don't want to be murdered. But the question I am asking is, why is it wrong for people to be murdered? To say because people don't want to be murdered is not answering the question. Because why should a murderer care about what his or her victim wants if its just a question of morals and not universal morals? Also my opponent argue that a theistic world view can not answer for this question either. Well, that isn't answering the question, that's just pointing fingers.

As I have said, I am a Christian and will be basing my arguments off a single religion and a single God. Now, my opponent may take this as a opportunity to criticize my religion like he did in his last argument, some what. If my opponent starts to argue that Christianity is not perfect and why should God be the ultimate judge this is still not answering the question of why anything is right or wrong to do anything. Again its just pointing fingers.

Now this is something I have only touched on a little, I can say something is wrong or right because I believe there is an ultimate judge, God. This means there are universal laws of morality, that are absolute, and everyone must abide by them. In an Atheistic universe the only thing that can judge morality is humanity which I have proved is inconsistent and ultimately can not account for morality at all.

Again I encourage the voters to listen to the video above it really illustrates my point.

My dad also had a personal relationship with Dr. Bahnsen (the man debating in the video). My dad told me that after the debate between Bahnsen (Christian) and Stein (Atheist) they continued debating each other through emails and letters, after a couple weeks of going back and forth with their arguments Stein eventually wrote "I don't really have any answers for you, but I'm just not ever going to agree with you."

Please answer the fallowing questions...

1)Why should a murderer care about what his or her victim wants if its just a question of morals?
2)Why are humans born with the right to live? I do not see a logical answer without God in the equation.
3)Are you saying that if the majority of the human population say that gays should not be aloud to marry, then that is automatically the moral standard?

Thank you,
charles15
Metz

Con

I will start with the three questions my opponent proposed to me at the end of his last argument.

1)Why should a murderer care about what his or her victim wants if its just a question of morals?
There are, obviously exceptions to my rule of moral deterrence. But remember my proof established it as a general rule. This has nothing to do with Atheism at all, when someone murders someone they are not in a state of mind that would disregard any moral background whatsoever. Even if we assume a theist stance, these people have committed a sin, so therefore God as much fails to uphold morals as would Atheism. Also the Psychological consequences would be felt later as philosopher and psychologist Fyodor Dostoevsky laid out in his book Crime and Punishment.

2)Why are humans born with the right to live? I do not see a logical answer without God in the equation.

I hate to say this but its the shocking truth... We are born with the right to live because we have a will to live. If nobody wanted to vote would it be considered a right? This will to live is also not traceable to god, but to the fact that humans are just animals with the ability to reason. Unless my opponent wishes also to deny evolution and biological fact then this has to be accepted. The most primal instinct of live is to preserve itself. This is where morals come from as I have repetedly argued. Humans judging others and therefore judging themselves.

3)Are you saying that if the majority of the human population say that gays should not be aloud to marry, then that is automatically the moral standard?

This is Mob rule, not necessarily morality. But not to criticize to much but I have that the same would be said of God. If the Bible says it then its wrong, which seems to be a common belief about gay marriage. As I said The base of Morality is humans, Gay marriage does not threaten anybody, so it is therefore it is not sought to prevent like killing would be. People Judge others in Gay Marriage but it does not affect them so the link between natural morals is flawed. A society may come to the belief that gay marriage is immoral, but it is not intrinsically immoral, and this seems to be what is happening in the world today.

Now on to the remaining arguments:

"Since I am only referring to One religion, which is Christianity. And since there is just one God then there is only one moral standard, thus God can account for what is wrong or right."

This really doesn't mean that everyone would follow this God, so are these people immoral? People believe do different extents, and so therefore have different morals even assuming the same God and religious texts and Church structure. In order for God to be as great a source for morals as my opponent claims we would need to abandon any remaining Autonomy and become almost robotic in our beliefs, an act which is, ironically, immoral in either world.

"So if there are just MORALS, to be defined by anybody, and no UNIVERSAL MORALS then who is to say that my morals are wrong? "

Not defined by anybody, defined by humanity. Humans Judge, you are judged by your fellows, you judge others and so judge yourself. Every step of the way there are checks.

" If there are no universal morals that prohibit certain acts of crime such as rape, murder, polygamy, theft, ect... then why am I obligated to obey those morals? Why can't I just abide by my own moral standards, since there are know Universal ones? For instance, I could think that its just fine to murder, rape, steal ect... because that's what I believe is right."

First, I Never said Atheism CAN'T account for universal morals merely that it was not my burden to prove that it did. Also, you can have your own moral standards, I know many people that have there own and are not killers, for example I think we have a moral obligation to fairness and to help people, I have friends that have a more sink or swim attitude. These morals can be relative, this is part of what shapes humanity, to accept that all morals are dictated to us really destroys that humans element. However when we get into killing, people judge more carefully, people are afraid. For the sake of protection and for moral order HUMANS establish moral rules, such as that against killing. Atheism can account for Morality because it was humans all along that accounted for morality.

"Who says the Jews have a right to live in the first place? "
They do... They have a will to live that is as strong as that of any other. This turns Life into a right intrinsic of humanity. Thus when the Jews were killed Hitler was taking an intrinsic right and the act was thus, immoral. I already addressed the other problem at the beginning.

"everyone knows that people don't want to be murdered. But the question I am asking is, why is it wrong for people to be murdered?"

You gave me the answer right there. This bring me back to the same Will to Live argument. It is wrong because people have a will to live. Because they have this will it becomes a recognized right to live. Thus when someone violates this right the act is immoral in most circumstances(there are exceptions to every moral idea).

Voters,
When you are reading this debate you need to think about whether or not you would logically do some of the things my opponent has said in his examples, and whether you would want them done to yourself. You also must recognize that Murder's generally have an altered or disturbed state of mind that could be influenced by such things as Alcohol that means in Either world these people don't respect morals.

The key question here is: Did my opponent prove that without God morals COULD NOT exist? Or did I prove that morals COULD exist in such a world. Remember the resolution asks could, which means "is it possible"

Thanks,
Metz
Debate Round No. 3
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by drjstrangepork 7 years ago
drjstrangepork
Metz, to summarize... You argue that human morals are nothing more than a collective agreement by a group(s) of humans as to what they all see as events they do or do not want to happen to themselves.
.. I don't want to be murdered; We don't want to be murdered; No murder
.. I don't want my mate to have sex with another; We don't want our respective mates to have sex with others; No adultery
.. I don't want someone to take my stuff; We don't people to take our stuff; No stuff taking (without permission)
.. etc
This order of establishing morals would account for the differing moral standards seen throughout the world and also explain why there are so few "universal" morals.
If a higher power were dictating moral values, then there should be no differing moral values. I would expect this to be the case even if the people observing these values did not recognize that "higher power".
If man was built in the Christian God's image, then the moral values bestowed upon man would be the same for all men and would have been from the beginning of man's existence.
We can all agree that not all people hold the same moral values.
Therefore, moral values are not created or solely created by God.
If God isn't the only one making up moral values, then it is possible to have morals without God.
Posted by NItEMArE129 8 years ago
NItEMArE129
If you had actually read my posts, maybe you would've found your answer.

But once again, empathy. Pain usually signifies death, rape will cause pain, empathy makes you feel pity for the victim. Therefore, rape is immoral because it causes pain, which signifies the possibility of death. The logic behind that reasoning may be flawed, but it is a perfectly viable explanation of why. Not to mention that it's more believable than something that we can't see, hear, touch, feel, or taste. Unless of course you believe with a fervent devotion and refuse to use good logic beyond "I just know it!" to explain your religion.
Posted by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
Wow! I cant believe my ears, don't you understand. Humans are just animals with a bigger brain and more precise thinking then why is it immoral for a man to rape a woman. I mean, monkeys do it all the time?
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I was talking specifically about cannibalism... My point is that the reason such things are considered wrong is because we have set ourselves up as this sort of dominant arbiter of morality among species. Where we lions we would think killing lions is automatically wrong. This is because humans have a natural herd mentality just like many other animals. While we may all find cannibalism morally wrong as a normal means of survival it is acceptable should it be needed. Survival is inherently ammoral as it is a necessary condition of life, however the means, and circumstances ought to be held to moral standards. Survival of the fittest never really works out with humans in the picture anymore. Now with advanced technologies humans are all theoretically almost equally powerful, a gun kills no matter what, and no other animal can stand a chance.

I am sort of playing devils advocate, I am not a vegetarian at all, I really love meat, but I also think that humans are rather hypocritical about these things. Humans are not naturally better than anyother species we just have bigger tools
Posted by NItEMArE129 8 years ago
NItEMArE129
Not really. It's not saying that humans SHOULD have food whenever they want. Just that it's morally acceptable for them to HUNT and KILL for food. Like they say, survival of the fittest.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
But doesn't that put humans above every other species? we don't know the thoughts of other species so obviously have no way to tell if they have the ability to reason or anything else that people say makes us more than animals? humans are, in a way, glorified animals, driven by the same primal instincts as most others species.

But I fully agree survival is amoral, or even moral, although perhaps the means of doing so may be held to moral standards.
Posted by NItEMArE129 8 years ago
NItEMArE129
"would you consider it Moral if we allowed say people to feed other people to lions, because the lions needed to survive?"

I forgot to say this, but I would consider this immoral on the basis that you are the cause for this person's death. You have set up the situation in which it is inevitable that the person would die, and, while you did not wield the blade yourself, you are just as guilty of murder as somebody who did.
Posted by NItEMArE129 8 years ago
NItEMArE129
"Is False.... would you consider it Moral if we allowed say people to feed other people to lions, because the lions needed to survive? or Cannibalism may be a food source(although I understand it isn't cross species)"

I'm saying that the idea of self-preservation is not immoral. Things are not always split into moral and immoral, so this could be referred to as amoral. It's necessary. If we considered immoral, then no human being would ever survive. the idea is that if it's necessary to survive, and the action within a justifiable range, then it cannot be considered immoral.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 8 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
"I mean animals such as apes or dear or whales don't have moral standards. So why do we."

There is evidence that animals do have a certain degree of morality. Apes for example have been shown to help others, where no reward is offered. In direct comparason with humans, they do this to keep social harmony and wellbeing in the group, therefore aiding survival.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Sorry I just felt I needed to Comment on this.... I agree with you(mostly)y NItEMArE129 except my reasoning is different...

But one thing you said "Also, because a shark is eating a different species in order to survive. Is it immoral for us to eat fish? No."

Is False.... would you consider it Moral if we allowed say people to feed other people to lions, because the lions needed to survive? or Cannibalism may be a food source(although I understand it isn't cross species)
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kenochs 8 years ago
kenochs
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Bhas 8 years ago
Bhas
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by AlonsoLCS 8 years ago
AlonsoLCS
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by trendem 8 years ago
trendem
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Colucci 8 years ago
Colucci
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JP 8 years ago
JP
charles15MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06