The Instigator
jonnyboy39
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
thatNerd
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

moral law

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...
jonnyboy39
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 391 times Debate No: 101992
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

jonnyboy39

Pro

Let me say,the moral law does exist.We know what we will do,what we wont do.There is another element,what we ought to do.What we ought to do for me is the key to morality.we all adhere to our own moral standards,but we all know deep down what a person should do.Is it right to save one man at the expense of many men,or too save many men at the expense of one?If a person breaks the "ought to" moral code of conduct he will notice a kind of death in him,the man for a time will taste an in er death..
thatNerd

Con

I believe there is no such thing as moral law and ideas surrounding morality have been developed over time in order to create a more efficient society. Unlike a relativist, I do believe people should have some universal moral standards, such as believing genocide universally wrong. However, when it comes to smaller questions on morality, morality laws cannot be applied because the circumstances surrounding the issues have a profound impact on whether or not an action is amoral or immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
jonnyboy39

Pro

Why do you believe there is no moral law?A better society developed over time?Cant you see things are getting worse and worse as we transgress the moral law.
Let me pose a question:If you walked past me and tripped over my foot,and it was a total accident,would you be angry with me? obviously not it was accidental.The moral law was not broken.If you walked past and i shoved my foot out on purpose to trip you up,then you would be angry,you see I broke the moral law.
thatNerd

Con

Which set of moral laws are you referring to? For example, Christians would point to the Bible for their moral laws. I believe there are no moral absolutes.
I also believe society has improved over time. For example, there is now an international police force, NATO, whose goal is to limit the violence of wars and protect human rights.
A better analogy is if a person is attacked and fatally shoots their aggressor and your moral law says killing is wrong. Was the moral law not broken?
Debate Round No. 2
jonnyboy39

Pro

I will say again,The moral law is,in my opinion a violation in two areas.
Firstly if the transgression was accidental or purposeful.In this way the other person or victim recognises the moral law as broken.Secondly we know what we will do,what we wont do,but also there is the question of the ought to do.If a person knows they ought to do and they ignore this inner (morality) law,they break it ,we feel the sting in our conscience.
thatNerd

Con

If I am correct you are not talking about moral laws as in "such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason"(Merriam-Webster). If you are arguing that you should always follow your conscience, I believe you should not because different things are seen as moral in different cultures and your conscience develops based on your culture and experiences.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
How do you define "moral law"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
jonnyboy39thatNerdTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a difficult one for me, I agree with Pro before and after reading this debate as I do believe and still believe there is a moral law standard outside of human moralistic values, I believe if we as humans don't have a transcendent moralistic source to measure our morals who get's to determine who is morally wrong or morally right? Because what may be morally wrong to one person could be morally right to someone else. I think both Pro and Con had good conduct so that remains a tie. Spelling and grammar is a tie because there were both errors in grammar from both Pro and Con. I give a slght edge of more convincing arguments to Pro as both Pro & Con engaged in some valid points but Pro did provide reasons why a moral law exist. I was going to leave reliable sources a tie, but Con gets this point because Pro didn't provide ay sources and Con did provide one source and that was from (Merriam-Webster).