An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God
My topic is "An object moral code is contingent on the existence of God."
I define "contingent" as something that occurs or exists only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on. For example: iff (if and only if) a then b, b is contingent on a
I define "God" for the sake of this argument as a being who is both omniscient and omnipotent. Also for the sake of this argument, I will ask that the existence of a Christian version of an afterlife (Heaven and Hell) be assumed to exist if and only if God exists. (If God doesn't exist, neither does an afterlife)
The debate will have the format modeling that of a public forum debate:
Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: speech from both sides (no rebuttals, only new points)
Round 3: crossfire (rebuttals, new points/arguments if needed)
Round 4: crossfire (rebuttals, new points/arguments if needed)
Round 5: conclusive statements, summary of argument (no new points)
Thank you for accepting this debate.
Over the course of this exchange of ideas, I will attempt to prove to Con and to the audience that an objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God in two ways. First, I will show that if God does in fact exist, then an objective moral code is able to exist. Second, I will show that if God does not exist, then an objective moral code can not exist. If I defend both of these contentions over the course of this argument, then by the end I will have satisfied the terms of the debate - "An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God" and by extension, I will have properly defended the Pro side of this idea.
1. A theistic view of the universe has an answer for what is good and what is bad, while an atheistic view does not
In the monotheistic view of God (which is the one I defined in round 1), God is, by definition, the paradigm of goodness. Everything that he is is good in the universe, and everything that we are told that we should morally strive for is something that He embodies. It can also be said for this point that, under the monotheistic view of God (I will refer to Him a simply "God" for the remainder of the debate), humans have a code of laws given by this God which define what is good and what is bad for us.
In an atheistic ideology, there is no such epitome of goodness to look towards when deciding what is ultimately good, regardless of human desire and internal moral compass. Desire and moral compass do not provide a basis for an objective moral code, i.e., regardless of human thought, things are either good or bad. E.g. The mass murderings in Maoist China were objectively morally evil regardless of what Chairman Mao thought. In the Con's atheistic view of morals, there is no such "ultimate good" in the universe to which we can look in order to discern goodness. On a second note, in relation to my Pro point, there is no one who has given the human race a code of laws that are to be respected above all human law - a moral code that transcends human thought.
2. In a theistic view, morals would be enforced by the justice of an afterlife. In an atheistic view, morals would not be enforced because no such afterlife exists.
I posit that in order for a law to have meaning, it must be enforced or be morally righteous. However, since we are arguing about moral laws and there is no law greater than what is fundamentally right and wrong, the only condition for morals to be laws would be if the moral law was enforced (because morals are being called in to question, we can not rely on morals to determine whether or not moral laws are meaningful).
On to this argument, I state that if God exists, then an objective moral law is enforced due to the justice of an afterlife. In simplest terms, doing things evil according to the moral law will merit absolute punishment, while doing good according to the moral law will merit absolute reward. This is enforcement of a law.
If God does not exist however, then there is no justice concerning moral laws. I assume we can both agree that human laws do not cover moral laws since under the Third Reich, it would be just to put a Jew to death. We can also both agree that putting to death someone for nothing other than an ethnic or religious purpose is objectively morally wrong. If human laws do not cover an objective moral code since human laws do not always reward what is good and punish what is evil (in the sense of the mass murderings of Nazi Germany), and there is no greater power of justice since God does not exist, then there is no objective moral code. In other words, since we can (hopefully) both agree that what Hitler did to Jews was wrong and since he was not punished by normal human justice, then he was not punished at all (assuming God does not exist) and therefore did nothing wrong, since no law was enforced.
3. A quick thought experiment
If I murdered a young child in cold blood for no reason other than to satisfy my sadistic desires, and I was not punished by human justice (meaning I got away with it), why would it have been wrong for me to murder that child? Ultimately, the law that says "Don't murder people" isn't a law since it was not enforceable. If I am going to die one day and cease to exist, the same as everyone else - Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, then why does what I do or do not do on earth matter?
My stand point is obvious I don't think that you need God and/or a god in general to have a moral code. Now the reasons why I have this philosophy are
1. Human feelings of empathy and sympathy
2. Societal influence
Now those are just overlays, and below I'm goanna go into more detail.
Human feelings of empathy and sympathy:
Humans generally have the feelings/emotions of sympathy and empathy (Sympathy is feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. While empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.) How these two relate to morality is that these are the two basic emotions that cause us to form our morals. We naturally feel these emotions they are not taught to us while it is true their definitions are that's different. Moving on, these emotions are what cause us to deceiver what is right and what is wrong because with these emotions we can place ourselves in that persons shoes, I don't go out a kill dogs because I can imagine and feel/imagine how terrible it must to die and lose a family pet.
Its the same reason why if its someone's birthday and I enjoy their company I'd say happy birthday because I can imagine if they didn't say it to me on my birthday and how terrible it must feel. Now, lets say your at the subway and someone falls onto the track and a train is coming so you jump down and save them, you do that not because God is telling you that its right you do it because its what you do its something that I call group survival. What that is is that because they are human and because they are part of my species I have a natural instinct to see that they survive because I know that in order for the specie to survive I need to ensure that as many of my species lives for as long as I can. Now that's not to say that if a dog fell that you wouldn't do the same thing but its less likely that a person would risk their own life for a pet rather than for another person. Its cruel but its the world we live in.
When this type of debate comes up people on the opposing side like to say "Well, if there no punishment for bad things such as sin then what's wrong with thing like Hitler's concentration camps or religious persecutions or etc. etc." The problem with this is that your taking someone's societal influence and different moral up bringing to your own, and the problem with that is that you can't really begin to understand why those things happen (And obviously if you can I'm not speaking to you.) Anyways when you get someone with a different moral upbringing what they do seems wrong overall when in reality there's no real issue with it because there is no whole world morality because the world is so diverse. Someone like Hitler and the Nazi party were brought up believing Jews were evil and that it was their religious/righteous duty to kill/ stop them at all cost. Meaning that what their doing wasn't wrong to them. Now, I don't agree with Hitler at all I'm not saying "Yeah they were totally right." No, I'm saying that within their own society what they were doing wasn't morally wrong.
But anyways my main point here is that religion doesn't teach moral upbringing its society always has been always will be. Now I'm not saying that religion hasn't influence society there for you and your loved ones that's actual a very accurate statement but modern day religions Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. don't teach you your morality unless your raised in a home that is heavily devote to that I'm referring to the general public. Society is what teaches us what our parents want us to think for example we think that slavery is wrong but in some societies think slavery's okay. Moving on, we learn our morals from society not from god we have morals and can tell the difference between right and wrong from our own society and not from religion.
After reading Con's argument, I must begin by stressing the definition of "objective" as in "objective moral code" (also known as absolute morals), which is what this debate concerns.
Both of Con's arguments were based on subjective things, not objective ones. However, I will refute them indivdually nonetheless to show how they don't fit as arguments for an objective moral code.
Human feelings of empathy and sympathy:
Con states: "Humans generally have the feelings/emotions of sympathy and empathy...How these two relate to morality is that these are the two basic emotions that cause us to form our morals."
While it is true that humans can feel sympathy and empathy and they can help us form our own personal moral code, they in no way impact the existence of an objective moral code; they do not show that one exists, which is the topic of this debate. Moreover, a sociopath who does not feel these things still does a moral evil if he kills someone. Feelings are irrelevant when discussing this issue, since the issue concerns whether or not God is needed for an objective moral code, not a subjective one.
Con states: "with these emotions we can place ourselves in that persons shoes, I don't go out a kill dogs because I can imagine and feel/imagine how terrible it must to die and lose a family pet."
Again, this is true that we, as humans, can feel empathy for others and that can inform our decisions. However, empathy for a family losing their pet does not tell us why it is wrong to harm that pet. Empathy helps us to do what is best for others, but it is not the basis for an objective moral code, and is therefore a pointless argument.
Con states: "Now, lets say your at the subway and someone falls onto the track and a train is coming so you jump down and save them, you do that not because God is telling you that its right you do it because its what you do its something that I call group survival."
Con ignores that fact that this might seem like the natural thing to do, however, it is not. Take this fine example of "group survival":  (a quick warning: this is graphic)
I ask Con to evaluate what it is that retains traits in the run of evolution's course, and to realize that looking out for the others in your species is something that is not a trait that developed any time recently, and has had plenty of time to die out. The reason for this is that once a species has survived the first steps (not dying), the need to procreate becomes the more pressing matter, with the ones who are most able to procreate being ths ones whose genes are passed on. How is looking out for eachother helpful to our individual procreation? In response to the second half, when Con says "you do that not because God is telling you that its right you do it because its what you do" - Whether or not God is actively telling us all what to do is not what is being asked. We are asking whether or not an objective moral code can exist without his existence, not whether natural moral urgings can.
Con states: "When this type of debate comes up people on the opposing side like to say 'Well, if there no punishment for bad things such as sin then what's wrong with thing like Hitler's concentration camps or religious persecutions or etc. etc.'"
Yes this is what I would ask, and it would be a valid point. Con's response is: "Someone like Hitler and the Nazi party were brought up believing Jews were evil and that it was their religious/righteous duty to kill/ stop them at all cost. Meaning that what their doing wasn't wrong to them."
This is ignoring the idea of objective morals: regardless of what a person thinks, it's wrong. Con must argue that an objective moral code can exist without God's existence, but he is arguing that no objective moral code exists whatsoever.
Con states: "there is no whole world morality because the world is so diverse."
Similar to above, Con is arguing here that no objective moral code exists; this is not the subject of the debate.
Con States: "But anyways my main point here is that religion doesn't teach moral upbringing its society always has been always will be."
We are not arguing where we as a human species learned how to instinctively tell right from wrong. We are arguing whether or not God must exist for there to exist and objective moral code. That is, one that is free from human thought. To illustrate this, an objective moral code would say that it was objectively morally wrong for Stalin to kill all the people he did, and for all those Chinese commuters to pass by that little, dying girl regardless of what they thought was right or what their society thought was right, or even what their religion thought was right. Objectivity has to do with reason and logic. It has to do with what we can intellectually discern to be true in the external world, not what our instincts/passions/feelings tell us/inform us. My positive statement is that an objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God. Not that society doesn't inform our instinctual moral thoughts, not that religion teaches us what is right and wrong - that for an objective moral code to exist, God must. Debate this point.
While I agree with the Pro on what objective means the point I was making was that morality is subjective and therefore an objective moral code can be created but without a god. HOWEVER, in order for this code to happen the population must be smaller then it currently is and there must be some sort of propaganda in which to brainwash the people to want and follow this code.
As for the Pro's counter-argument that empathy and sympathy do not impact an objective moral code the point is is that they in fact do, due to the fact that there is no evidence that a moral code exists. Evidence that one does not in fact exist is that because human morality is subjective and not everyone shares the same set of morals. Pro then states "They do not show that one exists, which is the topic of this debate." When in actuality refraining to the title of this debate "An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God." The real topic of this debates is that in order for a moral code it exist there must be a God. Even in the Pro's first round statement "I define "contingent" as something that occurs or exists only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on. For example: if (if and only if) a then b, b is contingent on a." Contingent is defined as
A theistic view of the universe has an answer for what is good and what is bad, while an atheistic view does not
2.In a theistic view, morals would be enforced by the justice of an afterlife. In an atheistic view, morals would not be enforced because no such afterlife exists.
3. A quick thought experiment
1. An atheistic view gives an answer for what is good and bad. It is all based on our perspective on the world. As I stated before There is no Objective moral code because everyone has different morality therefore you can't say that the Maoist killings were objectively bad because it varies who you ask.
2. In order for a law to have meaning it must be morally righteous." So, all laws against rape would mean nothing if there weren't morally righteous? I'm pretty sure that if religion never existed people would still say that rape is an unspeakable act that should be prevented. Same for murder, Arson, and etc.
3. Society says its wrong. Within the society you live it tells you that killing a young child is wrong because they know how it would feel to be that child's parents (Empathy). It matters what you do because you realize this is your only life so when you die you want people and your decedents to remember you as a reasonable decent man rather than an obnoxious sociopath who killed, raped, and violated everything he could because there wasn't a reward for just not being a complete jerk.
First, to deal with my contradiction: I misspoke. That statement should be changed from
"While it is true that humans can feel sympathy and empathy and they can help us form our own personal moral code, they in no way impact the existence of an objective moral code; they do not show that one exists, which is the topic of this debate."
"While it is true that humans can feel sympathy and empathy and they can help us form our own personal moral code, they in no way impact the existence of an objective moral code; they do not show that one can exist without God, which is the topic of this debate."
On the important matters:
Con states at the beginning of his argument: "While I agree with the Pro on what objective means the point I was making was that morality is subjective and therefore an objective moral code can be created but without a god. HOWEVER, in order for this code to happen the population must be smaller then it currently is and there must be some sort of propaganda in which to brainwash the people to want and follow this code."
I must be confused, and not understanding what this statement means, so Con correct me if I am wrong. How can you attain an objective truth from anything subjective? If Con is suggesting that if everyone in a community had the same subjective moral code, then somehow that subjectivity would become objectively true, than that is absurd. Did the Sun fly around the earth before the 16th century? No. It did not. Everyone on the entire planet thought it did, but it did not. Again, with the definition of objective in mind, it does not matter what people think. What people think is completely and utterly irrelevant to truth. I'm sorry I'm using so much bold, but I simply do not know how to get this point across in simpler terms.
Con states: "As for the Pro's counter-argument that empathy and sympathy do not impact an objective moral code the point is is that they in fact do, due to the fact that there is no evidence that a moral code exists."
Again, this is just as absurd. No amount of subjective thought could ever even hope to begin to cause anything to exist or to not exist in the real world. The fact that there is no evidence that an objective* moral code exists does not mean that the subjective moral code replaces it as being objective.
Con states: "Evidence that one does not in fact exist is that because human morality is subjective and not everyone shares the same set of morals."
Con later on told me that the argument is not about whether or not this objective code exists, but whether it's existence is contingent on God's existence. I understand that Con said this after his statement concerning how a subjective code becomes an objective one without God. This statement effectively says nothing to promote Con's point because claiming whether or not a subjective moral code does exist does not disprove the idea that an objective one does not, or that an objective one does not have to rely on God's existence. Similarly, if we observe a tree, what we are doing is creating a subjective image of a tree in our heads. Different people might have different ideas of what a tree is but the fact that we have subjective ideas of what trees are does not disprove the fact that trees do exist, or even that they might be different from your individual subjective tree.
My point stands: empathy and sympathy do not impact an objective moral code. Again, to be clear, what people think does not matter when one is talking about what is objectively true.
Con states: "Pro also states "However, empathy for a family losing their pet does not tell us why it is wrong to harm that pet." If anything empathy is the opposite of that statement. Empathy explains why its wrong to harm other things because we can place ourselves in that exact situation so that's why we feel that its wrong to do that to anything."
I believe Con missed my point. Imagine someone who does not feel empathy, a sociopath. Is it wrong for him to kill the dog? Obviously not, if empathy is the basis for an objective moral code. In this scenario, it can be clearly seen that empathy does not provide a basis for objective morals because there are those amount us who do not have empathy. An objective moral code would say that it was objectively wrong for him to kill the pet regardless of what he thought. Also, Con's statement presupposes the existence of a "golden rule," something that is not the basis for an objective moral code. I can explain this in more detail if Con would like, but I have faith that Con can understand in light of our discussion why the golden rule is not a basis for an objective moral code the way God is.
On the topic of evolution, admittedly, this was a red herring for both of us. The short answer is to this is understand how traits evolve and are passed along. I will go in to more detail simply for the purpose of showing how natural election occurs. However, this has little to nothing to do with the argument. It came from the original point Con made concerning a natural instinct to help others of our species, and instinct which is just historically and practically non-existent. Even if it did exist it would not provide a godless foundation for objective morals, keeping in mind our definition of objective. However, I will entertain this sprout from the argument.
Con makes it seem as though animals intelligently evolved. This is not the case. Animals do not "learn" to survive in their environment when concerning the evolution of a species over thousands of years. No intelligence is required. How traits are created is through error. When DNA replicates, it doesn't happen perfectly. When these new traits are beneficial to the environment, the individual with them has a higher likelyhood of reproducing, so the trait is carried on. If a trait is no longer required, that means that individuals without the trait have just as much a likelyhood of reproduction as individuals with the trait. Eventually, it is possible that a trait dies out because it is not needed, especially when you consider the people with the urge to help others are periodically dying because they put themselves in danger to save others. This shows that traits, especially traits that endanger ourselves, have a high likelyhood of dying out.
In the modern day, there are great examples of this. If you're ever been to China, you would know that drivers have no regard for their "human brethren". They will run you over. Being a pedestrian in China is one of the scariest things I've ever done. Crossing roads is scary because unlike in the West, drivers don't care about you. This huge split in the conscious thought of two sides of the world shows that evolution is not the culprit behind the idea of group survival, it is culture. In specific, Greek and Judeo-Christian culture that the West was essentialy built on.
Again though, this is not a useful part of the debate. It does not help either of us prove our points.
Back on the topic of our debate:
Con states: "the main point I was driving was that because morality is subjective people can for m their own form of a moral code. Hitler, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, Castro, and on, and on, all manipulated peoples view on morality forming their own set of moral codes none being the same. So I am saying that yes, anyone can make a moral code a moral code. Therefore is a moral code not contingent to the existence if God or a god."
This is a deductive argument presented with false equivocations and indescript points. Meaning, your deductive reasoning is based on not defining your premises as well as you should. Another example of this would be:
P1: All mammals exhibit homosexual tendencies
P2: I am a mammal
C: Therefore I exhibit homosexual tendencies
The conclusion is absurd, because I am, in fact, not gay. The problem with this logic is not in the form of the argument, but rather with the specificity to which we defined "mammal." In P1, mammal meant "all mammalian species" meaning that some of all of the species exhibit those tendancies. In P2, I introduce a different ontological definition: the scientific definition only.
Likewise with Con's argument. Con basically forms the argument
P1: Hitler, Mao, Zedong, etc. made moral codes
P2: They did it without the help of God
C: Therefore God is not needed to make moral codes
This is a false equivocation. Hitler, Zedong... formed subjective moral codes, while it is my contention that God is needed for an objective one. This argument is therefore not sound.
Pro's responses to my original arguments
Con states: "An atheistic view gives an answer for what is good and bad. It is all based on our perspective on the world"
This, again, would be a subjective moral code - not an objective one
Con states: "So, all laws against rape would mean nothing if there weren't morally righteous?"
Well, as I said before, there are two conditions possible for laws to have inherent value. 1. They must be morally righteous. 2. They must be enforced. In response to Con's point: If that law against rape was not enforced, Yes! That would not be a meaningful law! Being "Morally righteous" means whatever the law is outlawing is actually morally wrong, e.g. rape. If rape wasn't actually wrong, no law would have the right to say not to unless it was backed by a justice system.
Con states: "Society says its wrong."
Society also said that kiling people was right under Castro. If society is the basis for any moral code, it is not an objective one, since different societies have different values. What society does not do is lay out what is true and what is not. Going back to the point I made earlier, the whole world thought the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun rotated around it before Galileo. This fact does not mean that either of those contentions were true.
Con states: "Within the society you live it tells you that killing a young child is wrong because they know how it would feel to be that child's parents (Empathy)"
This is based on emotion.
Seeming as how Pro is confused I will explain:
Definition of Moral from Merriam-Webster: "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior" 
Con's definition of Moral is inaccurate. Morals are not simply what people think are right and wrong. Morals are ontological truths about human behavior - whether certain actions of metaphysically good or bad. Ontology deals with the nature of things, things that are objectively true. In fact, I have not confused morals for facts. Facts are studied by ontology. Fact are the things that are objectively true about the universe. For Con to say that the two are not the same is to say that morals are not inherently ontological, which is a red herring. We are not discussing whether or not an objective moral code exists, but rather, for one to exist would God by needed?
Continuing from this point, Con stated: "So, because they are not a fact they are subjective but they can become objective if an entire community thinks the same because that would be the ultimate truth."
I seem to not be getting through to Con in this matter. I will repeat myself once more since this is the last round. There are two ways for something to be subjective. 1) Epistemologically. This means that the thing in question is a human attempt at understanding metaphysical facts. 2) Inherently subjective. This means that there is no ontological basis for the thing in question. Morals are one of these two things. Con has suggested that morals are subjective in the sense that they have no basis in metaphysical reality. This means that no matter what, no matter how much human beings think something, it does not change the nature of the thing objectively. I strongly urge Con to read Ayn Rand, who (although I have many qualms with objectivism ) explains eloquently that objective reality can not be changed by human thought, even if every single living consciousness believes it.
Con states: "Pro claims me stating how a subjective code can become objective is not evidence for my side."
In fact, I did not claim this wasn't evidence for Con's side. I simply claimed that it was utterly false. Again, human thought can not change facts. They can not turn in to facts. They can not influence facts. Human thought is just that - a thought. Thoughts have no bearing in reality whatsoever. Therefore, the claim that Con has made that somehow if everyone believed in the same moral code that somehow it would become an ontological fact is absurd.
Con states: "While this is a true fact he tries to say that because of that trees don't exist and his point is how ridiculous that sounds. How ever he neglects the fact that nobody is denying that trees exist because its a fact that trees. Therefore Pro's point does not stand. and my point stands that empathy and sympathy do disprove an objective moral code."
Con missed my point entirely. I was trying to show how claiming that humans have subjective moral codes doesn't disprove the fact that an objective one exists. Besides this, this again does not relate to the argument concerning whether or not God is necessary for objective morals to exist. Con states that 'empathy and sympathy do disprove an objective moral code,' but this is not condusive to the argument. In fact, it runs counter to Con's point in which he has to provide an example for how an objective moral code can exist, not prove that one doesn't.
Con states: "Pro starts by saying that since a sociopath does not feel empathy therefore its okay for him to kill in our modern society which is what I was referring to. No, its would be wrong to us because that's what our laws say."
Con has been claining that empathy and sympathy are the basis for an objective moral code. The law is not part of this. I provided an example to show that no such objective moral code can exist through empathy and sympathy. I made my point. Defending an objective moral code with the law is futile because people can get away with doing things contrary to what the law finds acceptable. If a sociopath were to kill that person and get away with it, then I fail to see how it would be morally wrong, for justice must back every law.
Moving on, when Con talks about my syllogism example, he misses my point again. I was not trying to write a coherent syllogism, I was trying to demonstrate how a lack of definition of terms can lead to a seemingly sound argument. For example, if one were to interpret my first premise "All mammals exhibit homosexual tendencies" as "All mammalian species have members that exhibit homosexual tendancies" then the argument would follow as long as the false equivocation was made. My point in forming this (obviously) fallacious argument was to show that Con's argument was equally fallacious - that the codes that the dictators formed were not objective ones, which is what Con has to show. Con has to provide a scenario where God was not used to back an objective moral code.
Con then talks about my response to the second syllogism, concerning how the famous dictators of history formed subjective moral codes for their respective states and not objective ones. I don't quite understand what Con was trying to say due to his wording and run-on sentence, but if I am correct, Con has missed my point again. I will more clearly state it. Con has to show that an objective moral code can exist without the existence of God. He provided an argument that showed how dictators formed their moral codes, and in the process falsely equivocated the subjective codes made with a potentially objective one. That is why his argument is unsound.
Con talked about the fundamental idea behind what a law is, and I believe we reached a consensus that laws must be backed by justice. However, no human justice system is perfect. This relates to my original second point. The idea of an afterlife that is inferred from God's existence provides us with a perfect justice system. No human justice system is perfect, therefore no law is absolute and based in a perfect epistemological understanding of ontology. It can therefore not be the basis of an objective moral code.
Finally, Con states: "Again you asked what makes the murder of the child is wrong, the society you live in says its wrong."
Allow me to recap the definition of objective that I presented earlier in the debate: "based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings." Society (the general consensus) saying that something is wrong does not make it wrong. Likewise, society saying something is right does not make it right. At least, not in an objective sense. For instance, a while ago in the US, slavery was legal and society said it was alright to own slaves. Today, it is highly frowned upon. Slavery can not be both right and wrong. This would therefore lead to the conclusion that society's opinions do not provide a basis for an objective moral code; it would be based in opinion instead, which infers that something is not objective, as per the definition of objective.
To finish, I would like to say that it is my belief that at no point in this debate did Con make a sound argument for an Objective moral code existing without the existence of God. He did not even attempt to respond to my initial to positives made in Round 2, and he failed to rebut soundly my two negatives. His entire argument was based on: 1) Societal influence, and 2) Human emotions of sympathy and empathy. Both of these act contrary to the definition of objective that I provided, as I believe I soundly showed over the course of my three rebutting arguing rounds.
Finally, thank you to Con for this debate. Hopefully we can argue again in the future.
Pro had made his points and so have I. Rather than just spend my closing statement rebutting again. I will just 're explain my points and give my sources. I made two points for my main argument.
1. A subjective moral code is based on Empathy and Sympathy.
Human beings have always had some way of explaining why they think something is some way. Examples: Religion, Upbringing, Environment, etc. etc. However these all fall back to empathy and sympathy like Pro said sort of like a "golden rule" scenario now I know he said that that's not true but I'm not saying it is I'm saying that it's kind of like that. Even In the argument if God is contingent for a moral code to exist then his code would be basically the "golden rule" look as the ten commandments and such. Moving on I am merely presenting that because we base our morals, our morality on this concept that if everyone thinks it it will become objective because it will become a fact that it is wrong to do this because everyone thinks it is so it is and no one will do it. Pro misunderstands this and seems to think humans don't express these emotions on a day to day basis but they do. Just because a region of the world or a single person don't doesn't mean that it isn't what we do. To use the Pro's own example just because everyone before the 16th century though earth was flat doesn't mean it was. Now taking that point Pro states the I have misunderstood morals definition. When in all reality I haven't when I say morals I am referring to morality and the definition of morality is
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
Principles can he implemented meaning they are subjective meaning they are what people think. Pro seems to forget that because we get our morals from our morality that means they are similar. So, because morals are, as the Pro stated "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior." That means that it is right or wrong concerning to human behavior based on their morality.
Allow me to explain what I meant by facts not being the same as a moral code. A fact is something that no matter what you think it is what it is, for example you say all you want that trees don't produce oxygen doesn't mean it does. With a moral code you can say it's wrong or right and there's no way to say it's objectively wrong. So when Pro used the 16th century example I was explaining how it was a false equivalent.
Pro then states "
Con states: "Pro claims me stating how a subjective code can become objective is not evidence for my side."
In fact, I did not claim this wasn't evidence for Con's side."
But earlier he states
" This statement effectively says nothing to promote Con's point..."
You all can draw your own conclusions but to me this seems like he's saying "This is not a point, this is not evidence." Rather than "Thats not true because..."
At this point I would like to say that my rebuttals that turn into red herring are because Pro's points were that of a red herring. I'm not denying that when I away from the debate I do but I am merely rebutting Pro's points as I should in this debate.
Pro makes the point that because certain people can get away with breaking the law they are irrelevant to the experience of an objective moral code existence. So let me ask you this. "If there is a procedure that is 99.99 percent going to kill somebody but someone survived is that to say the procedure is safe?" No! Thats absurd! So just because a few exceptions exist doesn't mean that something can't still he objectively wrong without a God.
The issue with Pro's syllogism was that it had wrong facts because of the wording. If Pro had worded it properly I would have had a rebuttals for it but it wasn't the phrase "All mammals exhibit homosexual tendencies" doesn't imply some members of the species it implies all members of the species show homosexual tendencies which is not true. But it's not a sound argument because it's not based off of true facts, at all!
I apologize for the second one my computer deleted my argument for some reason the point I was making was that while it is true they formed subjective code, but people believe them to be objective and therefore making objective codes without God.
Pro continues with his law argument. I agree no human law is perfect but the reason for that is to ensure justice can carry out. For example: if we just assumed that someone killed someone else because they were there when police arrived then people would associate them with being a murderer. However, we have a system so that they can defend them self. Do bad guy's slip through it, yes. But that's what happens it sucks but it happens. And just pretending it doesn't won't help if anything it makes matters worse.
I will end my debate with this:
Pro claims that I have not proved my point, that I haven't rebutted his points and that I haven't presented a sound argument that a moral code is not contingent on the existence of God but it's not for my place to say that he is wrong or that I'm right, because I'm biased. However so is he, so you can take his word for it that I didn't prove anything but I ask that you just ask yourself, re-read the debate, not once, not twice, but there times. Really look at it. And if don't agree with me vote Pro, if you do vote for me. But don't just vote for who tells you who's wrong from within the debate itself you are human beings and you can draw your own conclusions.
I would like to thank Pro for the chance to argue, and I hope we can do this again soon.
I'll be honest I got all my definitions from just typing it into Google.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|