Life Philosophy Debate 2
Debate Rounds (5)
In any case, any questions will be answered in the comments.
My opponent will have Sole BoP if he/she chooses the Free Will topic, but BoP will be shared if he/she chooses to argue Pro Objective Morality.
Upon accepting, I ask that my opponent state which topic they chose and present their arguments in the first Round.
For the purpose of this discussion, Objective Morality will be defined as follows: the concept that in any given situation there is always one path that is universally moral for any and all people.
So, before we can discuss Objective Morality, we must first clarify Morality. Morality is not something that can ever change. Should Morality change, than something that was Moral previously ceases to be Moral in the present. Given that the past makes the present, and the present than creates the future, all time is, at some point, essentially the same. Because of this, if Morality changes, than Morality will cease to be real because it is paradoxical due to it's difference between times, which, as mentioned before, are all the same.
So, after that, we can conclude that Morality is unchangeable. Therefore, there is one universal Moral code. Whether or not humanity knows what it is is decidedly debatable. However, because there is one universal Moral code, we can deduce that in any given situation, Objectively speaking, there is always a decision to be made that leads to multiple choices, one more Moral than the rest.
Ergo, Objective Morality does exist, we just have applied subjective reasoning to a non subjective topic.
My opponent makes this claim, but inadequately supports it. He tries to support it with his "all time is, at some point, essentially the same" argument, but just as many other things change throughout time, I don't see why morality can't change. Even if it doesn't, there are different moral codes in different societies that come about as a result of different cultures. Even if those moral codes don't change, they're still different from one another.
My opponent speaks of morality as if it's some law that exists separately from us and is waiting to be discovered. Morality, in our sense, has not been at all shown to exist outside the realm of civilization. Therefore, it seems to be a product of civilization, a product of our minds.
"However, because there is one universal Moral code, we can deduce that in any given situation, Objectively speaking, there is always a decision to be made that leads to multiple choices, one more Moral than the rest."
I don't understand how my opponent can make this claim. What is more "moral" depends solely on the personal values of the individual making the decision. There can't possibly be one single correct answer for any situation because people have different values and what is right to them depends on what they value. Putting two different people in the exact same situation would possibly result in two different responses based on the individual value of the people.
Morality is purely subjective, what I find immoral another person might find completely acceptable and there's no way you can say that I am objectively wrong because if I find an action to be immoral then...there's no way around that.
As for morality being a product of civilization given that it has not been at all shown to exist outside the realm of civilization, we must note that this doesn't necessitate it coming from civilization. All it necessitates is that we realize that civilization is the one place, observable by humans, that contains morality. To conclude anything else requires additional proof.
You are correct that two different people in the same situation will respond differently. This merely demonstrates that people are different. As has been mentioned previously, moral egoism isn't a sufficient provider of morality. Moral egoism only provides an excuse for people to not act morally.
GIven all of this, we must conclude that there is a universal moral code. Because of this, there is a universal path to be taken in any given situation.
Morality does NOT exist as a universal code, and my opponent has provided no evidence to support this claim.
I agree with my opponent's second paragraph, however I'd like to present evidence that morality does indeed come from civilization. We clearly see moral codes as early as Hammurabi's code heavily influencing our laws and moral compasses today. These codes (as well as others, shown in religious texts) are of human origin (as they haven't been shown to have heavenly origin) and are a product of our own minds.
"Given all of this, we must conclude that there is a universal moral code."
But my opponent hasn't provided evidence of a universal moral code. He provided a strange proof in the opening round to show that morals don't change, even though they clearly do as we can see throughout human history. He may now say that it's because we haven't found the "universal code" but I could apply his same logic of "past makes present, present makes future, so all are essentially the same" to our human codes of ethics, but this would clearly be wrong as we can see quite drastic changes in human behavior concerning what's moral and what isn't as time goes on.
My opponent has yet to prove that morals exist as he imagines them.
What we DO see, however, is that different people in different cultures have different views on what's right and what's wrong, and there's no way you can prove any of them to be objectively wrong.
2/3 theories involve a God, or gods, that provide a constant for morality. However, this debate doesn't need to focus on statistics. Instead, it needs to focus on disproving theory 3.
To begin with, we have to establish where the matter in the big bang came from. Seeing as this theory excludes a God/gods, it had to come into existence out of nowhere, or it had to always be around for an infinite amount of time. Seeing is the former, everything just appearing out of nothing (nothing... nothing... POOF... everything), is impossible, the only possible alternative is the latter. Given that all of the stuff in the universe is an infinite amount of time old, we must conclude that it has followed through with the second law of thermodynamics, which, paraphrased, is this: over time, energy converts into less useful energy.
Now, the universe, in it's present form, has a certain level of useful energy that allows it to function. Over an infinite period of years, the universe will have energy that is infinitely less useful than the energy in the universe today. Ergo, the state in which we leave is finite and unsustainable. Given this, how did the big bang get enough useful energy to create the universe if, before the big bang, there was an infinite amount of time for energy to become infinitely useless. The simple answer is that the universe didn't. It is contrary to a scientific law, one of the only things that is guaranteed fact. Therefore, theory 3 is untenable and must be discarded.
Now that we have that established, we know that a being or group of beings beyond the universe has to exist. They are the very definition of infinity, and must be concluded as the only truly universal constant. Because of this, and the fact that there is evidence indicating contact with a being or beings involving the subject of morality, we must conclude that there is morality as I have defined it. Seeing as this was the only argument that you had against my case, I must say that all my previous words hold true.
First of all, since space and time are contingent, there was no "before" the big bang. Time didn't exist infinitely, it didn't exist at all. Therefore part of my opponent's argument doesn't really make sense (about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
Secondly, my opponent assumes that "God" (the supernatural thing that created the universe) is a conscious being. Why can't it just be a force, without conscious? Just as here on Earth we have forces/phenomena with no consciousness that create things, why must this out-of-the-universe force be conscious?
Thirdly, even IF the outside force IS conscious (which my opponent has no way of proving), I don't see how this proves a universal morality. If it is conscious, I would assume it has a mind of great power and would understand the differences between humans and not judge them all by the same moral scale, as we are all totally different in that sense.
Fourthly, my opponent brings up that the universe can't come from nothing so something must have created it, but then why don't we ask the very simple, but logical question: What made whatever made the universe? What made God? And of course my opponent would want to pull a classic cop out like "He's outside our realm of existence where there is no time, and we don't understand how things work there etc." something like that, but that's a cop out, nothing more. There is no need for a God to have created the universe because that just pushes the issue one step back and we must ask ourselves what created God?
And so, considering the above points in reference to my opponent's argument, I think we can conclude that:
1) Having a God doesn't solve the problem of "Where did all of this come from?" because then the question is "Where did God come from?"
2) Assuming a God exists, I don't see a way my opponent could prove that this God has a consciousness and is not merely a natural "force"
3) Assuming a conscious God exists, it seems logical that he wouldn't hold all of us to a single moral code, considering that he hasn't shown this code to everyone on the planet (arguably nobody at all), and that would simply be unfair and I assume an all-powerful being would be better than that.
In conclusion of this exchange, I'd like to say that I'm still largely unconvinced. If anything, more convinced of my own position.
As mentioned before, there's no way anyone could tell me an action of mine is objectively wrong (or right).
I await my opponent's move.
Grovenshar forfeited this round.
Thank you for the interesting debate!
My opponent assumes that the time and space thing don't matter. Everything had to have come into existence right at the big bang. I maintain my position that this is impossible. For everything to do that, physics would have to invent themselves from some position. From nothing comes nothing. This is basic logic. However, I will take the win that my opponent assumes that everything had to come into existence at once. This can only be caused by a God, or gods.
Why can't it be a force without conscious? It can't because that force would have to be infinite. If it were infinite, it would contain consciousness in there somewhere.
If it has a mind of great power, it knows what is truly moral at every point in time. Therefore, the being is, in it of itself, the universal moral code. (I'm sorry that this is coming into semantics).
The universe we live in is finite. The only thing that could have made it would have to be infinite. An infinite being doesn't need to be created. An infinite being is both the beginning and the end.
However, if that explanation is not enough, let me put it this way. The point is irrelevant. Regardless of how much speculation as to the nature of the being, the being clearly exists. To question its cause is like questioning one's own existence. It can't be done rationally.
My opponent brought up that an infinite being would have to show us a universal moral code, otherwise, this infinite being can't exist. I would object to the presupposition that the being hasn't shown us this universal moral code. It most definitely has. I would point to the Bible as an example of such a code. It takes into account the basics, such as the ten commandments, and it also takes into account individual choices in the letters of Paul.
There is a moral code. It is universal. Though people react differently, they are still judged by the same standard.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.