The Instigator
Rhys88
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Anonymity
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is Morality from god?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Anonymity
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,313 times Debate No: 31207
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Rhys88

Con

Morality is a requirement of society,created by society and is not from god.
Anonymity

Pro

How can morals have been created by society? If there is an objective moral standard by which society runs smoothly, then it has to pre-exist and transcend man's recognization of it; after all, it is objective. Or are you under the impression that it isn't objective?
Debate Round No. 1
Rhys88

Con

Morality is not objective,it's subjective.What's your argument for it being objective?
"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so"-William Shakespeare

Morality is a consequence of the struggle between life and death on the path of evolution.Man realised that living in a group increased his chance of survival and for the proper functioning of the group there has to be certain code of conduct.
That is why there are some variations between different groups in undetstanding as to what is right and what is wrong.

If you cannot discern right from wrong you lack empathy,not religion.
Anonymity

Pro

"Morality is not objective,it's subjective."

If, for example, murder is always a detriment to a functioning society, then banning murder is *objectively* something that makes society function well. You don't see societies without laws against murder, stealing, etc. because these are *always* things that prevent society from functioning smoothly. Hence, according to your definition of morality, it must be objective. Or will you say that the legalization of murder makes some societies function well?

"Morality is a consequence of the struggle between life and death on the path of evolution.Man realised that living in a group increased his chance of survival and for the proper functioning of the group there has to be certain code of conduct."

This doesn't mean that it isn't objective. After all, it could be that man merely *recognized* the moral standards inherent in his nature that increased his chance of survival. If it's all about increasing the chance of survival, then murder would have to *always* be wrong (since it involves the opposite of human survival), and thus it would have to be an objective moral principle.

"That is why there are some variations between different groups in undetstanding as to what is right and what is wrong."

There is some variation, but notice that there has never been complete variation. As I said before, all societies have recogized that, in order to function well, murder, theft, sexuality, etc. all need to be regulated in order for the survival, productivity, and perpetuation of the human species. These are things that are inherent in what makes human being survive. There are not multiple means by which humanity thrives - history says that upholding the same kinds of principles leads to productive results. Thus there must be inherent principles by which humanity thrives. And since they are inherent, they must be objective. Sure, there will be variations, because humans are prone to error - they are prone to erroneously recognize and surmise what they should do to function well.

"If you cannot discern right from wrong you lack empathy,not religion."

I am not of the conviction that one needs religion in order to be moral or to know moral principles. I do, however, believe that such moral principles are objective and that it only makes sense to uphold them if there is a God. After all, who cares about perpetuating the human species if there is no real purpose? I know I wouldn't care. I'd just do whatever made me happy regardless of its possible negative effects on a functioning society. If we are just here to live and carry on the species, who really cares what we do? Why should I care about a functioning society or perpetuating the human species when there is no deeper purpose for it?
Debate Round No. 2
Rhys88

Con

Through experience man has observed that murder is detriment to the proper functioning of the society and hence he considers them *subjectively* bad.Hence we don't find societies encouraging it.

If morals are inherent the world should be perfect.And what is the need to recognize it in the first place of it is inherent?And why do we have it in written form?Why do we have constitutons?Do you mean different people have different inherent morals?Hence accepting morals as subjective makes more sense than accepting it as objective.

There is variation in understanding moral values not because of human error but because of differences in human expexperiences,differences in their cultures....because of different societies.
If morality is objective,why the god of bible orders the Israelistes to kill the Amelikites or why would the god of Quran order to kill those who are against Islam?All these clearly point that morality is subjective and not objective.

Technically,perpetuating our genes is our purppose of survival.You did not choose what type of genes you should have but its your genes that selected what type of body you should have.

Technically,perpetuating our genes is the purpose of our survival.You are just being usef as a medium.You did not cho
Anonymity

Pro

"Through experience man has observed that murder is detriment to the proper functioning of the society and hence he considers them *subjectively* bad.Hence we don't find societies encouraging it."

Well technically everything is subjective in the sense that things can only be known through individual experience. However, among everything there *are* objective things. Through experience man has learned objective scientific facts, like the fact that the earth is the third planet in the solar system, the human body needs food and water to survive, etc. Just because we learn them subjectively does not mean that they aren't also objective. In a similar way that we have learned through experience that the human body *needs* water in order to function properly, we have learned through experience that human society *needs* to have murder banned in order to function properly. These are objective things that *always* produce good results. Hence the fact that it is immoral to commit murder is an objective truth, given that your definition of morality (in the very least) is that which makes society function well.

"If morals are inherent the world should be perfect.And what is the need to recognize it in the first place of it is inherent?And why do we have it in written form?Why do we have constitutons?Do you mean different people have different inherent morals?Hence accepting morals as subjective makes more sense than accepting it as objective"

Morals are inherent in the sense that they are ingrained in the minds of human beings, not in the sense that human beings will automatically follow them. The human will is separate from the human reason, after all. A person can still steal even though his reason tells him that he shouldn't; in fact, this is kind of situation that happens the majority of the time.

All morals are inherent in the sense that all humans have the first princple of "to do good and to avoid evil." From this, a person can deduce whether a certain thing is moral. Some people don't consider the same things moral for a number of reasons: their conscience wasn't formed correctly, they have done a certain thing so many times that they are numbed to knowing it's wrong, etc. The point is, through reason, everyone can come to knowledge of objective moral principles. Moreover, everyone can come to the same knowledge of what is moral/immoral through reason; those who differ, differ because they have made an error in reason.

If, like you suggest, morality is subjective, then it is bullying for the government to impose what it believes to be moral on the rest of us. If murder is simply subjectively wrong and not objectively, then that means one who believes murder is not wrong is just as correct as anybody else. Do you believe that? Do you believe that a person who considers murder something good is just as correct/sane as someone who does not?

"There is variation in understanding moral values not because of human error but because of differences in human expexperiences,differences in their cultures....because of different societies."

Notice, however, that some cultures didn't survive because of the way they lived. Are we to believe that their morals were just as correct as ours regarding what makes society thrive?

"If morality is objective,why the god of bible orders the Israelistes to kill the Amelikites or why would the god of Quran order to kill those who are against Islam?All these clearly point that morality is subjective and not objective."

God, being the master over life and death, has a right to take away or give life as He chooses. Moreover, the idea that God can do something while we can't is a topic for a different day. We're talking about human beings (and what *we* ought to do), not God.

"Technically,perpetuating our genes is our purppose of survival.You did not choose what type of genes you should have but its your genes that selected what type of body you should have."

So, would you not consider it an objective principle that society needs to perpetuated (by human reproduction)? Would it not be an objective moral principle for you that we *ought to* reproduce? If it's subjective only, that means that human society might also be perpetuated by not reproducing, which is nonsense.
Debate Round No. 3
Rhys88

Con

Rightly said,most of the so called objective things are viewed subjectively first and then with consistent evidences and experiences we take it as objective.Many years it was thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth and then due to progress in science and technology,today we say that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that it is the third planet in order which does so.When you observe,there are evidences for the same.What evidence do you have when you say that morality is objective?But to say it is subjective,the very fact that is beneficial for the society is an evidence.

Morals are ingrained in your brain in the sense,through common experience and conditioning it becomes a genetic part.When you see a person being killed,you are emotionally affected for the same reason.Some people don't consider moral the same way you do,not because of faulty reasoning but because of their social conditioning or personal experience.So through reason,you cannot conclude what is objectively right because there is no objective right.A person in some middle east may consider killing a person against Islam as something holy and according to his reasoning it is objectively right.So a person who believes murder(or killing) is good is correct according to him.For you it may be wrong and that is what makes it subjective.

Morals are necessary for the survival of a society but it is not the only factor which sustains it.

If you say that god has the right to take someone's life and that it is right for him even if it is wrong for us,makes no sense.In that case whatever wrong you do maybe always considered something as right from gods point of view.There is no point in talking morality here.

As you said it is an objective principle that society needs to be perpetuated by human reproduction,but it is not a moral principle and obviously it cannot be subjective.So it seems yo are agreeing with me on this point.
Anonymity

Pro

"What evidence do you have when you say that morality is objective?But to say it is subjective,the very fact that is beneficial for the society is an evidence."

It is contradictory to say that it is merely subjective and that, at the same time, it is beneficial for society. If it is beneficial for society, then it is objectively beneficial for society. There is no way to justify the claim that "in some cases, not banning murder is beneficial for society." The claim is never true, because murder, by nature, causes disorder whereas society seeks order. Thus, banning murder is ALWAYS beneficial for society. If something is ALWAYS true, then it is an objective principle. There's simply no way around it.

Every single society has looked down on murder in some fashion as a detriment to society. Is this not indicative that perhaps murder is something that every society ought to ban? If it is, then it must be an objective moral truth that "murder is immoral."

The fact that we have at least one objective moral principle thus indicates that morality, as a whole, is NOT purely subjective.

"Some people don't consider moral the same way you do,not because of faulty reasoning but because of their social conditioning or personal experience.So through reason,you cannot conclude what is objectively right because there is no objective right.A person in some middle east may consider killing a person against Islam as something holy and according to his reasoning it is objectively right.So a person who believes murder(or killing) is good is correct according to him.For you it may be wrong and that is what makes it subjective."

I agree that various circumstances may cause people to have a different convictions regarding what is moral/immoral. However, this does not automatically mean that there is not an objective moral truth, or that they cannot overcome circumstance to reason to the truth. The person who believes something is correct is not necessarily correct; after all, there is an absolute truth. We know that there is an absolute truth because to claim that "there is no absolute truth" is self-contradictory, seeing as the claim that "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement. Hence, the belief of the given Islamic person is either correct or incorrect. There is no third option.

"Morals are necessary for the survival of a society but it is not the only factor which sustains it."

Yes, and it cannot be the case that two different set of morals sustains two different societies equally well. A society is not sustained well whenever there is disorder. Clearly, there is disorder when there are no property rights and people are just taking whatever they want as if it were a free-for-all. Having laws against stealing ALWAYS creates order, and thus this must be an objective moral principle that makes society run smoothly.

"If you say that god has the right to take someone's life and that it is right for him even if it is wrong for us,makes no sense."

Morals do, in some sense, depend on who/what you are. For instance, it is not acceptable for a person to have to submit to another, in general. However, it is acceptable for a child to have to submit to their parents. Likewise, a citizen of the U.S. cannot create their own laws and impose them on other people; however, the government can do this. Thus, whether a person has the ability to do something can be dependent on whether they have authority.

"As you said it is an objective principle that society needs to be perpetuated by human reproduction,but it is not a moral principle and obviously it cannot be subjective.So it seems yo are agreeing with me on this point."

Why is it not a moral principle? Does a society not function properly when they reproduce? Or will you say that not carrying on the human species is something that humans ought to do?
Debate Round No. 4
Rhys88

Con

Something which is beneficial for the society can be subjective too.Eating pork is considered as fine in the west but as taboo in the middle east.Banning murder is just considered as beneficial for the society,if the same thing is viewed at a larger level then it would become more easy to realize that it was in fact for the society that banning murder was good.As you can see,not killing is not always encouraged from a larger point of view ,so it cannot be always true.When you insist that moral truth is objective,you are focussing only at local level which obviously will appear objective.

If various circumstances cause people to have different convictions,then it is as per the definition known as subjective.If you say that the person who claims something as correct is not actually correct, the other person equally has the right to say that he is correct.Hence,there is no absolute right or wrong which again indicates that it is subjective."There is no absolute truth" is not contradictory in the sense different people have different experiences and they live in different societies so there are many things which they all cannot agree upon at the same time.If the belief of the Islamic person can be either right or wrong,then who decides whether it is right or wrong?So this clearly proves that moral values are subjective.They are only considered right by a particular group which may be considered wrong by some other group and both of them are correct according to them.

Two slightly different morals can sustain two different societies because of different conditions.Having laws against stealing always creates order within the society,but this may not always be true if it has to do with some enemy camp because within a society it is necessary to have those laws for the proper functioning of the society.

If morals depend on who you are,then again it is subjective and not objective.Giving authority to someone simply cannot change their definitions.

Perpetuating through reproduction is an objective principle and a moral one.A person who is not willing to reproduce cannot be punished and say that it is wrong not to reproduce.But the fact that you can perpetuate only through reproduction is an objective truth.

So,all these clearly points that morals are subjective and not objective.And even if you suppose it is objective,is there or could be anyway to prove that it is from some imaginary entity?Because to prove that,first you have to prove that he exists and that maybe another topic for a debate.
Thank you.
Anonymity

Pro

Murder of the innocent is banned in every society in some fashion. There may be rare exceptions in which killing is allowed, but murder of the innocents (who they think is innocent) is always banned. This seems to indicate to me that society cannot function well unless murder of the innocent is banned. If this is the case, then murder (of the innocent) is objectively a principle which hinders society from functioning well. Think about it. If it were, for example, acceptable in a society to murder every child that was born (children are by nature innocent), then that society would not perpetuate, but vanish after a little while. Is it subjective that "murder should be banned" in this case? I think not. Society does NOT function well when it cannot sustain itself. Clearly, a society in which everyone dies out DUE TO the willfull actions of the members of that society, is not sustaining itself. Thus, banning such a thing ALWAYS benefits society, which means it must be an objective moral principle.

You say that the claim "there is no absolute truth" is not necessarily contradictory. But it is. There is an absolute truth, and to claim otherwise is a contradiction. Now, we come to the question of whether this applies to beliefs about morality. I give an emphatic "yes." The example about murdering all the newborns cannot be only subjective. Just as through observation/reason we learn scientific objective facts (like the fact that the human body needs water), we also learn through observation/reason, that banning murder of the innocent is something which will always benefit society. Whether something benefits society is objective in the same way that whether something benefits the human body is objective - both can only function well when they are ordered rightly.

Every society embraces courage and looks down on fear. Is this simply subjective? No. This is something ingrained in human nature. There are many things that every human being will always praise or look down upon. There are some things that are objective because all people find them good or bad. We cannot simply look at those things which people disagree on and say "see, everything must be subjective!" Sure, people will disagree. People still disagree about whether evolution is legitimate; just because people think it's not doesn't mean that it isn't. Thus, the fact that people disagree does not necessarily indicate that we're not dealing with something objective. I think the fact that all societies have the same basic moral principles that they all follow (care for the young and elderly, laws against murder of the innocent, property laws, etc.) indicates that we cannot just put this in the category of "subjective." Such would mean that it is might be productive for a society to not ban these things. But this cannot be the case - at the fundamental level humans are the same; we all have the same basic nature.

You say "Having laws against stealing always creates order within the society,but this may not always be true if it has to do with some enemy camp because within a society it is necessary to have those laws for the proper functioning of the society." Exceptions don't make the rule. Within the society itself, there are still laws against stealing.

Only in the sense of authority is it true that morals can depend on who you are. This only applies to authoritative situations. We cannot take the fact that a child must submit to his father but that two adults don't have to submit to each other, then conclude that morality is dependent upon who you are. Again, exceptions don't make the rule.

The issue with labeling morality as simply "subjective" is clear. There are objective principles which always make society function well. The fact that murder of the innocent, stealing, etc. will always create disorder within society, putting a damper on whether society can sustain itself, demonstrates that there exist objective moral principles which objectively benefit society. We did not get as far as determining whether morals come from God (considering it is lengthy enough to discuss the objectivity/subjecticity of morality), but I would simply comment that if morality is objective, then it doesn't make sense for it to be objective without God (or some deity). This is because the purpose of morality is to create order within the individual (to make the individual in control of their passions) and, as a result, to create order within the society. But, why have order within society? What's the point? For what purpose do we need to even perpetuate the human species in the first place? Sure, it's ingrained in human nature, but why? It is nonsensical to want to perpetuate the human race for its own sake. It's not a good reason. If that's the reason why we're doing it, then it makes just as much sense to me to go out and take what's not mine as I please and to kill anybody who tries to get in my way. After all, why should I care about acting morally if there's no good reason for the purpose of morals? The only good reason why humans should be obligated to act morally is if morals have come from an authority above all human beings; otherwise, I am my own authority - I can do all kinds of reprehensible things and I don't have to give anyone else any authority over me. It only makes sense to act morally if there is an authority from above. This authority, I call "God."

I'd like to thank my opponent for participating.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rhys88 4 years ago
Rhys88
I'm pecking on my android,isn't there any option to edit it.And I guess they don't have a mobile version either.
Posted by LeroyJenkins 4 years ago
LeroyJenkins
GODS NOT REAAAAAl.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ladygagadisco 4 years ago
ladygagadisco
Rhys88AnonymityTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I loved the debate. I wish more could be argued about the inherency of morality as that would be an amazing debate itself. I voted Pro because Con's refutation isn't as great as Pro's extensions.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
Rhys88AnonymityTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't understand what Con was arguing. Con was arguing about intergroup subjectivity. Pro was arguing about intragroup subjectivity. Con was saying different groups can function in different ways. Pro arbitrarily suggested that society must function a particular way. On the other hand, Con argued that morality comes from society whereas Pro said morality comes from individuals. However, Pro later acknowledges the foundation of individual subjective experience building up to society-wide morality following Con's mentioning of conditioning. Con abandons this debate by leaping to intergroup subjectivity instead of intragroup subjectivity. If Con stayed focused he could have won, but he lost focus. Pro wins. Also, Con needs to clean up his grammar. Reading through Con was a little sloppy. EDIT - saw Android mentioned in comments. No grammar deduction is deserved.