The Instigator
Jamesjeffery49
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hematite12
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Morals are Objective

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Hematite12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 51733
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Jamesjeffery49

Pro

Morals are entirely objective.

If killing, rape, stealing, lying, and torture are all wrong nation-wide in everyone's conscience, then this suggests that there is some form of moral order which the Universe conforms itself to. I believe that there is a God who created this objective moral standard, and thus the fact that the standard exists is evidence of a God.

Examples:
-Declaration of Human Rights
-Acceptance of certain practices as 'inhumane'
-Restrictions on 'Freedom'

I believe to be truly free is to realize there is an objective moral standard that you cannot achieve perfectly, recognise the need for a Saviour, and thus accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and King.

Doing so liberates us from the bondage of sin, and removes the bonds of slavery that once tied us down.

I would love to hear from someone who wants to argue that morals are relative, and thus provide evidence for their case.

God Bless,
James
Hematite12

Con

Hi, I accept.

If killing, rape, stealing, lying, and torture are all wrong nation-wide in everyone's conscience, then this suggests that there is some form of moral order which the Universe conforms itself to.

Argumentum ad populum.

I believe that there is a God who created this objective moral standard, and thus the fact that the standard exists is evidence of a God.


Circular logic. You believe that God created the objective moral standard, and that the standard lends itself to God's existence. You would have no reason to suppose either claim without the support of the other, so neither of these claims can stand on their own.

Examples:
-Declaration of Human Rights
-Acceptance of certain practices as 'inhumane'
-Restrictions on 'Freedom'

Every single one of those is up for debate among different people. What is properly a human "right", or even if there are any true human rights, will probably be disagreed upon by every human and especially between different societies and countries.

I believe to be truly free is to realize there is an objective moral standard that you cannot achieve perfectly, recognise the need for a Saviour, and thus accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and King.

Doing so liberates us from the bondage of sin, and removes the bonds of slavery that once tied us down.

This is fine if this is what you believe, but they can't be considered points of debate, since they contain blatant religious bias that I can't respond to.

Because of a lack of characters, I will simply state the following:

There is no way to go from "is" to "ought". What is can never be indicative of absolute "oughtness" or moral obligation in its truest sense. What people think cannot be a means by which to bridge the gap, since people are wrong all the time. What nature seems to indicate means nothing, since it seems that nature must often be tempered.
Debate Round No. 1
Jamesjeffery49

Pro

Jamesjeffery49 forfeited this round.
Hematite12

Con

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited, I would have liked to continue the debate :/
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
Jamesjeffery49Hematite12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, conduct Con. Pro used logical fallacies, arguments Con.
Vote Placed by Aravengeance 2 years ago
Aravengeance
Jamesjeffery49Hematite12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF