Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Famous vs Magic: Atheist Objective Morality

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
the debate
http://www.debate.org...

Resolution: Assuming that God does not exist, morality can be objective

The BoP should be shared, but for some reason R1 rules say that Pro has sole BoP, so whatever. Note that Pro's burden is merely to prove that it is *possible* that morality is objective, he does not have to prove that morality *is* objective, based on the resolution. It is also important to note that objective means that X is right/wrong regardless of anything. Nothing changes that fact. So if the Nazis succeeded in taking over the world and brainwashed every person on the Earth that the holocaust was morally right, if objective morality exists the holocaust would still be, and always will be morally wrong (Craig).

I'm posting this in the forums so that discussion over RFD is better, the debaters can quote specific parts of the RFD they want to discuss, I get notifications about it, we are able to type out long and thorough justifications, etc. It also encourages giving good RFD's by publicizing them.

Disclaimer I listened to these songs whilst voting, it would be best if you listened to them while you're reading the RFD so we can bond spiritually. Although I was listening through Spotify
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Pro starts in R1 by proposing that morality can be determined by rationalizing whether an action is net beneficial, or net detrimental to the well-being of all conscious creatures. Pro explains that we can determine whether an action is objectively good based on its relation to health and unhealthiness. Pro establishes that we can objectively rationalize what actions are right and wrong in regards to health, and thus homeostasis of a being. Pro also departs on a defensive argument against a hypothetical rebuttal, involving chemotherapy and hockey, but this is defensive so I won't focus on it in my RFD as it doesn't impact my decision on who won the debate, it's not an *offensive* impact. The logic follows that if we can objectively determine was is right and wrong in regards to possessing health, we should be able to objectively determine what is right and wrong in regards to net benefit to conscious creatures.

Con accepts the logic of the health connection, thus Con must show how the logic of morality differs from the logic of health. Con explains that the definition of health enables us to find the objective answer, but the definition of morality does not allow us to find an objective answer. As the definition is what is just and right, as it would be a truism that poison is bad, it is not a truism that Euthanasia is wrong, because many people think it is not just, or right. My problem with this as a judge is that it ignores the definitions given in the debate. Judging morality based on what people believe is right is assuming that morality is subjective, and that it matters what people believe to determine what is morally right. But as we are arguing whether morality would be objective, this is entirely irrelevant.

Con next says that you cannot define a rationale for determining morality because that rationale is subjective. So although Pro's definition of what determines whether an action is moral or not would produce objectively right or wrong answers, it does not work because the rationale is not justified. Which is a good point as there was no explanation from Pro on why his definition is correct. But this logic also begs the questions of why the definition of health is the "objective" definition. The two concepts of logic are tied together in this debate, as Con conceded, and since Con needs to show why morality is different, he needs to justify why this is not the case in the definition of health.

Pro responds to Con's argument that the rationale for morality is subjective by explaining that the accepted definition for morality in R1; what is good, proper, and just is what is beneficial for a conscious creature (thus the metaethical justification that Con was demanding is fulfilled.) Pro furthermore justifies the definition by explaining that a creature's well-being the complete basis of morality, without it right and wrong are meaningless terms.

Con again claims that Pro fails to justify why suffering should be the basis of morality. But Pro already did justify it, as I explain in the above paragraph. This is basically Con's entire focus in his R3 response. The rest of the debate is just rehashing what has already been said, or irrelevant things. None of which was important in affecting the debate.

In the end, what decided the debate was Con dropping the reasoning that Pro gave that justified his definition of what determines morality: the accepted definition of morality in R1 of the debate, justifies Pro's definition. And since Con accepted that the definition establishes objective answers, that essentially affirms the resolution, giving Pro the win.

Peace and Love
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 8:50:12 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
By the end of the debate I realized that I'd probably lose due to the way I phrased the resolution and the definitions provided.

Thanks for the RFD Hayd! :)
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 2:10:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 8:50:12 AM, famousdebater wrote:
By the end of the debate I realized that I'd probably lose due to the way I phrased the resolution and the definitions provided.

Thanks for the RFD Hayd! :)

<3