The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Theists do not have objective 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
CosmoJarvis has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 97951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Objective: "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" [1]
Morality: " Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" [1]

Logical fallacies will be pointed out
Kritik will be pointed out
Round 1: Acceptance, state your position, agreement on definitions of terms.
Round 2: Main arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusion/state why you believe you won, no new arguments here.

I am arguing that theists do not have objective morality, my opponent will be arguing that theists do have objective morality.



'Tis a pleasure to debate with you again, my good sir.
I am arguing that religious peoples have objective morality. Please do not confuse my argument for "religious people have objective morality but atheists don't."

Objective morality: the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion [1]

Debate Round No. 1


Yes, I look forward to debating you again.

The first argument I have that theists do not have objective morality, is the fact that morals differ from religion to religion and culture to culture. If theists had objective morality, then all theists would have the same morals, but each of them differ which indicates that their morality depends on something other than objective sources.

I shall point out that in the US and most Christian nations it is okay to:
1) eat beef
2) Drink Alcohol and gamble
3) Allow women in school and businesses
4) For women to wear shorts and have face uncovered.
However in some non-Christian nations, these things are not okay. For example in India it is not okay to eat beef; in Middle Eastern Islamic countries it is not okay to drink Alcohol or gamble; In Afghanistan it is not okay for women to go to school or go into business; and in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan it is not okay for women to wear shorts or have their face uncovered. [1] All of these things are based off of the theists' beliefs.

On the flip side, in America and most Christian nations it is not okay to:
1) Kill newborn females
2) Perform female genital mutilation
3) For a family member to kill a woman family member who is raped
However in China and India it is okay to kill newborn females; In many African nations it is okay to perform FGM; and in Somalia and Sudan it is okay for a family member to kill a woman family member who is raped. [1]

The fact that these theists each have different beliefs on what is moral, suggests that they are not from objective sources. If the sources were objective, then there would be no difference between the morals of some religions to other religions.

Now, some theists may argue that they have objective morality because they have a god which tells them what is wrong and right, however, how is this objective? Unless the god gets moral ideas from an objective source, then theists' morals are subjective since they depend on the opinions of this god. It's merely this god's opinion that some things are wrong and other things are right. The morals are not suddenly objective just because their god says they are: after all, other theists believe the same thing: that their god gave them objective morals, yet morals differ from religion to religion.

Objectivity is based on facts, and facts inherently point to one thing being true. Facts cannot show that multiple ideas are true that conflict with another, otherwise this is contradictory. Murder cannot be right and wrong in the same instance at the same time if it was based on objectivity, yet some theists consider murder to be okay in some instances whereas other theists consider it wrong in the same instances. This alone shows that theists do not have objective morality, but rather get their morals from their own subjective opinions.

After all, theists choose which religion they are a part of. They will naturally choose whichever religion has the morals they agree with, not which religion has the most facts to back them up. If theists chose which religion was most objective, then there would only be one religion in the world(or none at all), but most theists choose a religion based on what they feel is correct, not based on what is actually correct, and that is why there are so many different religions in the world.

I'll turn this over to my opponent now.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Wait, I don't understand the claim.

You're saying that objective morality is a set of principles that don't come from your personal feelings. So religion gives you principles that are not from your personal feelings.

So yeah, just a little confused.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
To say that moral values are objective is just to say that moral values are not determined by what anyone thinks. Moral accountability, on the other hand, has to do with the consequences for people"s moral or immoral behavior.
So saying that moral values are objective is to say precisely nothing about moral accountability, including whether there are "eternal consequences" for our actions.
It could be the case that there are OMVs and our actions have eternal consequences. It could also be the case that there are OMVs and our actions do NOT have eternal consequences.
This question may be more complex than it looks. It is important not to confuse objective morality with absolutist morality. The latter is a hallmark of religious doctrines, which make statements of the type "thou shalt not". But an objective morality, i.e. a morality based on the facts of reality, does not need to be of that type. All it needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments. Because of this, atheism is perfectly compatible with objective morality.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
No one has objective morality. You would not be able to make ONE case...I would rather say that theist do not always know theire subjective morality, but use a fictive form, (religion).
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.