If Atheism Is Correct, Morality is Entirely Subjective
| Started: | 4/28/2011 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 2,257 times | Debate No: | 16201 |
 Pro Description of the Debate: This is my first debate, so I will be geatful to have anyone debate me in search for truth. In this debate, I will be arguing for one contention,
This debate is not about the existence of God but rather if God does not exist, there is no sufficient way to ontologically ground moral values and duties. "If ... men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering" (1).
Certain actions such as incest and rape may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human development have become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to show that rape and incest is really morally wrong. Such behavior goes on all the time in the animal kingdom but is not viewed as immoral because since they are just animals and there is no moral dimension to them. If one believes that human morality is objective, he is merely succumbing to an unjustified bias toward one’s own species. If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no objective moral law that we must obey.
(1) Charles Darwin, The Decent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd edition (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1909, 100.  Con Morality: Conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.[1] But what does the word right mean? Dictionary.com defines it as "correct in judgment, opinion, or action." (1)Morality is what is right (Definition) (2)What is right is what is correct in judgement, action, or opinion (Definition) (3)Subjectivitiy is a statement where truth is contingent on opinion. (Definiton) (4)Objectivity is a statement where truth is not contingent on opinion. (Definition) (5)To do what is advantageous in survival is 'correct' in that it aids in the continuation of a species. (6)This fact does not rest on one's personal opinion. (7)Morality is objective. Vote Con [1http://dictionary.reference.com... |
 |
|
Pro I apologize for not giving the definitions and thank you for accepting this debate. (1)Morality is what is right (Definition) I accept this definition. (2)What is right is what is correct in judgment, action, or opinion (Definition) I accept this as well. (3)Subjectivity is a statement where truth is contingent on opinion. (Definition) Again, accepted. (4)Objectivity is a statement where truth is not contingent on opinion. (Definition) This, I also accept. Here is where I believe the error lies. You are presupposing that doing what is advantageous in survival is “correct,” with the goal of the continuation of the human species. Why is continuing the human species correct in judgment, action or opinion? Isn’t this your own subjective opinion? How would one come to the conclusion that it is objectively true that the continuation of our species is moral? I refer to my earlier paragraph. I agree, but why do you? Con (5)To do what is advantageous in survival is 'correct' in that it aids in the continuation of a species. My opponent argues that it is my own personal opinion that the continuation of the species is correct. //"Why is continuing the human species correct in judgment, action or opinion? Isn't this your own subjective opinion?"// First, I never argued that continuation of the human species specifically is moral. I argued that the continuation of 'a' species was correct in judgement, action, or opinion. Second, the continuation is the vey point of evolution. An organism whose environment keeps changing while it's features stay the same will most likely not reproduce or continue the species. By not surviving, it is going against evolution and nature and is thus wrong in action. |
 |
|
Pro I regret only putting three rounds in this debate now that I fully understand how these work. Alas. "First, I never argued that continuation of the human species specifically is moral." I understand now, I apologize for misreprespenting you. "Second, the continuation is the vey point of evolution." It seems asthough you are chosing a goal or telos and then whatever process happens to reach that goal is "moral." So with the goal of reprodcing and expanding our species anything that helps us do so is moral. But with the goal of murdering somebody else shooting them would be a moral acton because it is helping you reach that spacific goal. The question is weather or not a goal is moral. "By not surviving, it is going against evolution and nature and is thus wrong in action." You are presupposing that whatever goes against nature is morally wrong in jusdgement, action or opinion. Of course if your goal was to following the path of nature and evolution then of course it's stupid to do anything other. So the real queston is why going againt nature and evolution is objectively, morally wrong. It seems to me Con has not given any reasons that, real, objective moral values and duties could exist without the existance of God. Con "So the real queston is why going againt nature and evolution is objectively, morally wrong." I have already shown that it is wrong in action because it goes against an objective goal. "The question is weather[sic] or not a goal is moral." If my opponent had read my syllogysm carefully, he would know that an action is moal specifically because it helps one to reach a goal. My opponent has yet to bring any point against this and so I urge a Con vote. |
 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 0 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 5 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 4 | 1 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 5 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 0 |
| pearlygates | socialpinko | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 3 | 0 |
I've seen that link before and it's just one fallacy after another. You Christian apologists are getting more and more desperate. You claim the Bible is the word of god, and then say that it is fallible and open to interpretation. God is not real. Live with it.
Intellectual_Perplexion, that's not an argument against theistic objective morality. Insofar as you think that God did something morally wrong in the OT, you are actually affirming premise (2) of the moral argument. And notice that even if God did command unwarranted genocide in the OT, it doesn't falsify (2) -- it follows only that either some form of Ockhamistic voluntarism is true, or that the Bible is fallible.
In regards to the seemingly horrendous events in the OT, I'd recommend you read Paul Copan's "Is God A Moral Monster?" Also see his paper in Philosophia Christi: http://www.epsociety.org...
I hope you never pursue a career in journalism, because you will be fired within the first hour for cropping quotes. Your arguments are laughable, but I will respond.
I agree there is a no objective morality in atheism, but I went on to say it does not exist in any religion either. This is the whole basis of YOUR argument which I was trying to refute.
I didn't say that god should go back and change the Bible, I said that if he is supreme ruler of the all time and space, then he should have dropped a law or two about NOT OWNING OTHER PEOPLE AS SLAVES. That is not 'my moral standard', it is ubiquitously accepted in any modern society. Degrading an entire race of people is immoral, no matter what. Maybe you should go back and read the whole bible, instead of just the sections that your pastor points out to you.
Finally, read the Old Testament. If genocide and dropping burning sulfur on entire towns is not immoral, I don't know what is. Where is "His" objective morality now?
@Kinesis
Someone could have 5 PhD's in Spiderman comic studies, but someone not indoctrinated to believe in them from birth could easily point out how f*cking stupid it is.
WLC has two PhD's in analytic philosophy and New Testament studies, has spent half his life presenting and refining his arguments for God's existence and regularly contributes to peer reviewed literature surrounding issues like philosophy of time and the historical Jesus.
Hitchens is a journalist.
Hitchens is not qualified to take on WLC on the existence of God.
Also, I really don't understand how you think Hitchens won that debate.
It seems as though you keep straying more and more away from the topic, AGAIN, all I asserted was without the concept of the classical monotheistic God, morality is subjective. You seem to agree with me when you say, "Atheism doesn't have any objective grounding" so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. The thing that then astonishes me is you then go on to say, "If god transcends time, then he should have possessed the foresight to address seemingly obvious moral issues in the Bible." You know seem to claim to say that God should have changed the bible to match your moral standards which you also claim are relative to your time period..? Furthermore, If God does exist it is utterly impossible for him to do something immoral, because he is supremely good, and if one supports Divine Command Theory, it shows how it's a contradiction of terms to say, "God's actions are immoral." That doesn't make sense.
Where is this exactly.