The Instigator
V5RED
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Objective morality requires the existence of a god.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 482 times Debate No: 79634
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

V5RED

Con

I will be arguing against the premise that objective morality requires the existence of a god or any other supernatural being.

For the purpose of this debate, I will define objective morality as true moral values that apply regardless of the opinions or beliefs of any human being. I would say any rational being, but then I would be defining objective morality as something that does not depend on a god which would be dishonest since pro is meant to argue that objective morality depends on a god, and most gods are thought to be rational beings.

Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Arguments offered for and against the premise
Round 3: Rebuttals, no new arguments.
Round 4: Closing statement. Rebuttals allowed, no new arguments.
Romanii

Pro

I accept the debate.

Looking forward to seeing Con's arguments, as atheistic moral realism is a philosophy which I am currently unable to see a tenable case for.
Debate Round No. 1
V5RED

Con

The simplest form of the objection to the claim that objective morality depends on the existence of a god is the Euthyphro dilemma.

Is an act good because a god deems it so, or does a god approve of it because it is good?

If it is good because god deems it so, then morality has become defined as divine command theory which is to say that whatever a god tells us to do counts as good because he said so. This would mean that rape, murder, torture for fun, etc. would be morally correct if the god tells us to do those things.

If the god approves of it because it is good, then its goodness is independent of the god.

An common defense to this is to say that god's nature is goodness, so what he tells us to do is good not because he decided it, but because his very nature is goodness so anything he tells us to do will be good. This, however just brings us to a second form of the Euthyphro dilemma. Is god's nature good because it is his nature or is it good because it causes him to approve of good acts.

If it is only good because it is his nature, then you are still stuck with the problems seen with divine command theory.

If his nature is good because it causes him to approve of good acts, then that type of nature is good independent of the existence of a god and the acts that are approved would still be approved whether or not he existed.

Thus if objective morality exists, it is either something that is absurd that makes it possible for acts that do nothing but harm to be called righteous acts or it is something independent of a god.

I do not yet have a completely sound argument for objective moral values, but I never claimed that I did. If I did I would have worded the argument as "Objective moral values exist" without reference to a god.
Romanii

Pro

Romanii forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
V5RED

Con

I am still waiting for con to make an argument. Obviously we have now lost a round so if con plans to continue, we can just forgoe the closing statement round.
Romanii

Pro

Sorry for the forfeit. I forgot this debate had a 24 hour time limit.

== Pro Case ==

Objective morality is essentially a set of transcendental prescriptive facts regarding the actions of human beings. Just by examining the definition of objective morality, three points in favor of the resolution can be raised.

(1) Atheism mandates physicalism (I will elaborate more on that later, if Con contests it), which means there is no room for transcendental constructs like morality to have any sort of objective existence (as they are inherently non-physical). This is not a problem under theism because God himself isn't physical, and therefore physicalism is obviously false. Moreover, the existence of transcendental concepts must be grounded in the existence of a similarly transcendental source.

(2) The fact that morality only applies to human beings indicates that they have some sort of special status compared to the rest of the inanimate & amoral universe. There is simply no basis for this under atheism, because humans would essential be no more than highly-evolved animals. This is not a problem under theism because, as many religions preach, God could have specially created human beings in his image, thereby granting them their exceptional moral significance.

(3) Prescriptive facts are, by definition, commands on what we should or should not do, and are therefore inherently communicative. However, communication necessarily involves intelligence, implying that the source of prescriptive facts must be an intelligent being of some sort -- i.e. God.

== Con Case ==

Con's fallacy is circular reasoning, as he is already presuming that some sort of objective morality exists independently of God's existence in order to make this argument. Out of the two option presented by the Euthyphro dilemma, I choose the former -- an act is "good" because God deems it so. Con's only objection to that is: "this would mean that rape, murder, torture for fun, etc. would be morally correct if the god tells us to do those things... that makes it possible for acts that do nothing but harm to be called righteous acts". However, there is no real reason to see this as a problem. Con is assuming that his ethical intuitions and utilitarian reasoning hold some sort of objective moral significance -- he is assuming that there is already an objective moral standard in place which can govern whether or not God's commands is "right" or "wrong", yet that is exactly what he has to prove!

I have provided three reasons to believe that objective morality requires the existence of God, while Con has provided a single fallacious argument. The resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 3
V5RED

Con

1) No, it does not. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god and nothing else
2) No, it does not. Moral agents are beings who can reason to morality and thus are held accountable for their actions and deserve ethical treatment. Moral patients are beings who can experience suffering but do not understand rationality and thus deserve ethical treatment but are not held to ethical standards. Dogs, chickens, and the severely mentally retarded are moral patients. Fully functional humans and any other beings that are rational (eg Vulcans, Klingons, Ferengi) are moral agents.
3) Demonstrate this. Why must a prescriptive fact be communicated by an intelligent being rather than being discovered?

Your rebuttal to my case is simply defining morality as a supernatural being's will. That is a lexical rebuttal, not a logical one. If you would take the position that a human who has done nothing but harm other sentient beings his entire life has behaved morally, then you have demonstrated a definition for the word that is repugnant to a rational being.
Romanii

Pro

Thanks to Con for the debate.

== Pro Case ==

Note that Con does not contest my definition of objective morality.

(1) The alternatives to physicalism are dualism and idealism, both of which involve the existence of a separate "mental substance" which is distinct from matter. Dualism posits that all of reality is made of matter except for human minds, which are composed of the mental substance. However, this view is self-refuting. In order for it to co-exist with the field of neurology, it must involve interaction between the 'substances' of mind and matter, yet because of their fundamentally different metaphysical natures, such interaction is impossible -- it would be like trying to get an alkaline metal to react with a noble gas, except that ontological differences are even "more impossible" to surmount than chemical differences. That leaves us with Idealism, which maintains that all of reality is mental. However, everything which is mental must have a mind behind it, and because we are talking about the entirety of reality, the mind in question would have to either exist independently of reality (in order to mentally project it) or *be* reality itself -- in other words, idealism is contingent on theism/pantheism. So via process of elimination, atheism does, in fact, necessitate physicalism, and therefore this argument stands -- atheism disallows the existence of a transcendental construct like morality.

(2) Con is making the same mistake he made in his main argument. He's putting forth moral claims and expecting us to take them for granted, even though he still hasn't shown that morality exists independently of God. Why should we care if beings can experience suffering or engage in moral reasoning? Why does that grant them any moral significance? Under atheism, suffering, rationality, free will, emotions, etc. are all reduced to nothing more than a meaningless electrochemical reaction in the brain. All we have to work with in determining the parameters of objective morality is our agreed-upon definitions of it -- if you take a look at Con's definition (from Round 1), it specifically singles out human beings, so we can assume that moral constructs tend to revolve around them. Moreover, Con never contested my definition, which explicitly said that morality governs human actions. Thus, objective morality *does* imply that humans have a "special status" setting them apart from the rest of the inanimate & amoral universe. Theism accounts for that, whereas atheism cannot.

(3) Con proposes that prescriptive facts can be "discovered" and therefore don't have to be communicated by an intelligent being. Obviously, Con misunderstood what I was saying. My justification for morality being rooted in an intelligent source had nothing to do with how we come to know about moral facts... it was about how the inherently prescriptive (i.e. communicative) nature of moral facts implies that they are contingent on the existence of an intelligent being.

== Con Case ==

Con's defense of his argument just commits the same fallacy of circular reasoning again. He's assuming that his moral intuitions have objective moral significance in order to prove that objective moral significance can exist without God. This argument should be dismissed.

-

All three of my arguments in favor of the resolution remain standing, whereas Con's only argument has been debunked.

The resolution is affirmed.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
lol... I would have had the last word either way.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by extending the debate into comments. Voters aren't allowed to consider what you write here in their decisions. If you're doing this to convince me that I'm wrong, then don't bother -- I don't actually believe most of the stuff I wrote. I don't view debate as an exercise in truth-seeking. It's a game.
But sure, I'll play along

>> Re: Physicalism

You set yourself up to lose this point. Rather than just saying "atheism =/= physicalism" in Round 4, you should have actually given an argument for some alternative atheistic ontology which does allow for purely conceptual constructs to objectively exist without a mind to conceptualize them. Without doing that, you allowed me to win that atheism implies physicalism, which is the premise that two of my three arguments were based upon.

>> Re: Logic

False. Just like morality, logic is conceptual in nature, so my ontological reasoning can be cross-applied here to show that logic can't objectively exist without God either. The most common atheistic explanation is that the laws of logic are axioms which we have to assume to be true simply because we need them to even begin making sense of the world. They are universal, but not necessarily objective.

>> Re: Meanings

Like morality and logic, "meanings" are conceptual, so they can't objectively exist without God either.

>> Re: No Response

Actually, in most debate settings, dropping in argument is the equivalent of conceding it.

>> Re: Prescriptive Facts

Prescription is *by definition* communicative. You shouldn't have conceded that moral facts are prescriptive. There's a case to be made that they are descriptive -- i.e. they simply indicate whether an act carries the objective property of being "right" or "wrong".
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
And this is why I wanted the number of rounds I wanted, you made all of your arguments after I no longer had a round to counter them and made many fallacies.

You make assertions such as "Moreover, the existence of transcendental concepts must be grounded in the existence of a similarly transcendental source." without any basis for that. You also incorrectly think that atheism=physicalism. Logic is nonphysical and still fits an atheistic worldview.

"Under atheism, suffering, rationality, free will, emotions, etc. are all reduced to nothing more than a meaningless electrochemical reaction in the brain." Again false, lack of a god does not imply lack of meaning to things.

"Moreover, Con never contested my definition, which explicitly said that morality governs human actions. Thus, objective morality *does* imply that humans have a "special status" setting them apart from the rest of the inanimate & amoral universe. "Fallacy. Not addressing a thing is not the same as accepting it.

" it was about how the inherently prescriptive (i.e. communicative) nature of moral facts implies that they are contingent on the existence of an intelligent being." Fallacy. You still never justified the claim that prescriptive facts must be communicated by an intelligence.

I am amazed at all the fallacies you threw out after I was no longer able to reply.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
"he is assuming that there is already an objective moral standard in place which can govern whether or not God's commands is 'right' or 'wrong', yet that is exactly what he has to prove!"

Correction:

"he is assuming that there is already an objective moral standard in place which can determine whether or not God's commands are 'right' or 'wrong', yet the independent existence of such a standard is exactly what he has to prove!"

Just in case my lack of revision made it difficult to understand my point...
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
I know it was my mistake. Doesn't mean I can't be annoyed about it.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
The site tells you the time limit, that you didn't bother to read it is your own fault. Throwing a fit about your mistake is childish.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
WTF this debate had a 24 hr argument time limit?

dammit noobs stick to the 3 day limit -_-
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
V5REDRomaniiTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to Pro's forfeiture. For arguments I'm going to have to award these to Pro. In the first read through I was tempted to almost give it to Con, except for Con not arguing Pro's definition. Not to mention that Con's main point for refuting Pro was "No it's not" which really isn't refutation at all. Pro pratically wins the debate on semantics and since Con didn't provide a definition it permitted Pro to define the word which allowed Pro to debate on his side. For that I have no choice, but to give arguments to Pro.