The Instigator
cbcullen84
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Black_Cap
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Prior reference to Morality

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...
Black_Cap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 41397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

cbcullen84

Con

You've stated that we shouldn't base any sort of morality on texts that don't adhere to our current, general set of morals but the fact remains that our perception of good and evil is solely based on religion. I advise you to use simple etymology and research the word "Good", you'll find that it's origination is from Genesis and Genesis is the oldest recorded "Book" in the history of the world. There are a few texts that can be confirmed as older than Genesis but they aren't books and certainly aren't codes of morality in today's society. So it stands to logical reason that when you reference "Morality", you're actually referring to a Biblical doctrine of what is good or evil, right or wrong. One "Might" argue that morals in today's society are different but then you'll find with a little research that the society of the United States originated with Christianity...proof is in the Declaration of Independence with the reference to our unalienable rights given to us by our "Creator". I can't see the logic in stating that morality shouldn't be based from texts that originally defined morality. God is referenced as the supreme moral authority for a reason.
Black_Cap

Pro

So to get my general point of view out of the way, let me state that I believe morality to be completely subjective. Therefore any argument I make regarding morals will be on morals that are generally accepted to be "good" or "evil" and not objective morals that most religious people tend to support.

So on to the first point, no. Just no. Our perception of good and evil is definitely not based on religion. By our current standards or morality, there is a tremendous amount of "evil" acts in the bible that are apparently justifiable as long as you believe that your chosen deity is the "real one" so to speak. Like I stated in the original opinion piece, cherry picking just the stuff you agree with, isn't a good way to go about basing any morals on.

An origin of a word doesn't have any bearing on it's use today. Just look at the original meaning of the word "gay" for example. Secondly, stating that a book is really, really old does nothing to give it credibility. Just because something has been preserved over many years does in no way prove anything about the validity of its content.

On to your point of the concept of morality always referring to biblical doctrine. If an old book mentions a topic and many people choose to believe in it, it once again does not in any way prove any sort of validity. Also, stating that morals are based on biblical doctrine implies that no one had morals before the bible was written, which is just not the case. It also implies that people who have not been exposed to our society, eg. some tribe in the Amazon for example, don't have morals, since how could they if they never even heard of the bible.

So on to my main argument. I think that our morality is primarily based on societal pressures and evolution in general. Being good to one another is beneficial to the species in numerous ways, such as allowing us to build complex societies, not killing each other to the point of extinction and many other reasons. Then once we have societies, their shared experiences and knowledge transfer enable us to create and adapt new sets of morals, like how most people agree now that slavery and abuse is morally wrong. So just using that last example of slavery, we don't consider that moral now, but in biblical times, it was just a normal part of society, so it wasn't regarded as morally wrong.

So in conclusion, old texts should not be a basis for any moral judgements, rather think for yourself and base it on the abundance of knowledge our species has gained.
Debate Round No. 1
cbcullen84

Con

cbcullen84 forfeited this round.
Black_Cap

Pro

Sigh... Join up, start a debate, never show up again......
Debate Round No. 2
cbcullen84

Con

cbcullen84 forfeited this round.
Black_Cap

Pro

lets get this over with
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
*3400-3000 bc*
Posted by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
As a Theologian even I can attest it would be hard to Place the book of Genesis as the oldest text. Although I believe its contents is the oldest, it was actually only written around 3,000 to 3,400 at the earliest, and I know their is writing before that. Its sad to see my Bible misrepresented this way. Thank you for being respectful con, its a hard trait to find these days...
Posted by bephig 3 years ago
bephig
"You've stated that we shouldn't base any sort of morality on texts that don't adhere to our current, general set of morals but the fact remains that our perception of good and evil is solely based on religion. I advise you to use simple etymology and research the word "Good", you'll find that it's origination is from Genesis and Genesis is the oldest recorded "Book" in the history of the world. There are a few texts that can be confirmed as older than Genesis but they aren't books and certainly aren't codes of morality in today's society."
- False

See entry of Wikipedialated to "Book of the Dead" that is more ancient than bible.

"If all the obstacles of the Duat could be negotiated, the deceased would be judged in the "Weighing of the Heart" ritual, depicted in Spell 125. The deceased was led by the god Anubis into the presence of Osiris. There, the dead person swore that he had not committed any sin from a list of 42 sins,[43] reciting a text known as the "Negative Confession". Then the dead person's heart was weighed on a pair of scales, against the goddess Maat, who embodied truth and justice. Maat was often represented by an ostrich feather, the hieroglyphic sign for her name.[44] At this point, there was a risk that the deceased's heart would bear witness, owning up to sins committed in life; Spell 30B guarded against this eventuality. If the scales balanced, this meant the deceased had led a good life. Anubis would take them to Osiris and they would find their place in the afterlife, becoming maa-kheru, meaning "vindicated" or "true of voice".[45] If the heart was out of balance with Maat, then another fearsome beast called Ammit, the Devourer, stood ready to eat it and put the dead person's afterlife to an early and unpleasant end.[46]

This scene is remarkable not only for its vividness but as one of the few parts of the Book of the Dead with any explicit moral content. ...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
cbcullen84Black_CapTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: As a Christian I was looking forward to observing this one. Con in his only statement used arguments that are not the best to use when discussing objectivity. Although I agree with Con's position I am almost certain that he would not have had any proper documentation to back up his claims. Pro, although we disagree, you present your argument well. Maybe we can debate this someday???