The Instigator
Thoht
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religious Objective Morality is a Might Makes Right Argument

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,066 times Debate No: 119059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

Thoht

Pro

Happy to think with you today.

R1: Acceptance and Basic Arguments. Con can rebut if they wish.
R2: Counterargument and Expansion
R3: Counterargument and Conclusion.

Clarification:

The majority of religions will argue that they have an 'objective morality' based on the fact that their God, The supposed creator(s) of our universe, Said so. Their argument looks something like this:

1. My God created the universe.
2. Therefore, He can't be wrong about morality.

It is easy for me to refute this along the lines of "Is it unimaginable that something could create the universe and be evil? " The answer to this is no.

Others would say:

1. My God created the universe
2. My God, By definition, Is good.
Therefore, My God's morality is objectively true.

The is-ought distinction plays a big part here. Even if God exists, There is no argument you can use that we ought to accept its morality as objective fact. The only argument you can give is that he is powerful or intelligent. These are might makes right positions. I submit that most religious people should be uncomfortable about this.

I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
omar2345

Con

I would like to rebut in this Round and have a conclusion in Round 3 without rebutting in the same round to make it fair.

If I am not supposed to do to this then you can count this as an acceptance round.

1. My God created the universe.
2. Therefore, He can't be wrong about morality.

To me this is already flawed. First they have to prove the existence of God and then say we have objective morality. I can also argue that (I'll stick to the Bible) Christians cannot even accept what it says in the Bible. If they did why are there so many sects in the religion? Similar with other religions but I'll stick to Christianity. I am going of the assertion with religious folk go by which is that the Bible transcends time and is still useful to this day. From what I see either the entire book is full of straight forward instructions or it is filled with metaphor's, Figure of speech etc. I don't think I am out of line in saying it is better to have a Bible as an instruction book then a book filled with many literary techniques. Note that there is no mention that said quote is a literary technique it is only accepted by Christianity to be so.

One example is this: "If your hand causes you to sin, Cut it off"(https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=Mark+9%3A43-50&version=NABRE)- After this the Bible explains why it is a good idea which I don't see how this is a literary technique. This I think someone would say it is a figure of speech and I would say it is clear instruction. My instruction is grounded in my understanding what instructions are and figure of speech is accepted by 1 or all sect as a figure of speech which I do not see.

Instruction: a direction or order.

Therefore, My God's morality is objectively true.

This is flawed logic. Humans created the Bible. I think Christians would say humans are flawed so from that I would say the Bible is flawed even if it has divine intervention. Lets say God exists his objective morality would be true but it can't be from the Bible because followers of said Religion have so many Sects. They do not believe in the same things how is the Bible objective?

I think my premise is in the first paragraph if you want me to clearly lay it all out again then I will do.

Hopefully we both learn something from this debate.



Debate Round No. 1
Thoht

Pro

Rebut is fine in R1 as well by the rules I set.

The problem we're having is that you are having a different debate than I am.

I am assuming that their god exists already in the debate topic. I'm allowing this and trying to state that even if he is known to exist (even which one he is) his morality is still not objectively true. If the universe could possibly have been created by an evil omnipotent entity, Then there is no reason to make the assumption that a God's morality would be objectively true. That god could indeed know what objective morality is, But he may choose to go against it. God, Being a conscious entity, Would always have subjective morality. If he had no power to do something that was immoral if he so chose, He is no god. He is a being ruled by morality, Not the other way around. If morality doesn't exist outside God then that makes everything he does correct by no more justification than he is powerful, So that is what it is. In this case, The argument would be that Human Morality should supersede what "objective morality" has been defined as, And objective morality isn't so moral in the first place. In either case, We cannot assume that objective morality will be what any God presents us with. Humanity then, Should strive to overpower God and rebel against its tyranny.

The debate topic is more of a metaphysical one. You, As con, Have to argue that religious objective morality is not a might makes right argument. If you're only interested in dismantling the theory that the Bible gives Christians the right to say their morality is based on objective morality, We agree. My point on the matter is that "If the Bible is open to interpretation, I. E. If you have a chance to be wrong, If there is a discussion among Christians as to what the right view is, Then your morality is as subjective as the rest of ours. "

I'm not including a Biblical discussion in my arguments. I'm arguing about whether or not objective morality stems from god in a universe where he is known to exist. I. E. Imagine God proved himself to exist. This could happen at literally any time and would require zero effort on God's part. We would need to answer to ourselves whether or not to accept his morality. If we did not, Then we would have to attempt to rebel, However many millennia that took.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
omar2345

Con

Might makes right: Even if someone might actually be correct, Those with power are often able to impose their beliefs on others through force, Rather than logical persuasion.

Religion is a set of system of beliefs that can have a God in them. Going by the many title given to God. Omnipotent and all knowing for two. This is enough that surpasses might makes right. If he can predict the future surely he would know what is best for us and realising the scenarios that can take place he can find the best in doing it. All knowing can get his point across to all fringes and can bring everyone in for a common goal.

One point of contention that you might have is that maybe we percieve God acting out in a bad way. The way I see it God is a more powerful being and does know more about humans and his idea of good or bad is more knowledgble and more then likely be objective. Since he can predict the future and does know everything he can determine what is right or wrong given the scenario. In the short term it might look bad but given enough time you would realise God's was right doing that.

I don't really know where you can go with this so I'll leave it at that.

Good luck
Debate Round No. 2
Thoht

Pro

You are saying Omnipotence+Omniscience is so mighty that it overwhelms a might makes right argument.

That's at least an interesting assertion.

If someone knew everything there was to know, Would he necessarily operate in a way that would be to the benefit of all, Or just the way that best benefits himself?

There's no way for us to know that, Even if one knew everything that could exist or could change the world's rules to what you fancy, That that person would have all of our best intentions at heart. You can say that God might KNOW of what would be objective truth, But he could also know that the best way to serve him is Scenario A. Scenario B would be the best way to serve man. Scenario C would be the best for both, But less for either.

Unless we gained access to omniscience ourselves, How could we know that this is not just an intelligent person taking advantage of us? Why does omniscience, Even if I grant you that it exists, Mean that you are going to be good?

I submit that it doesn't. All I have to do is find the most morally reprehensible thing that God allows to exist and have you try to argue a single point in defense of it morally. If you can't provide even one, Then God's universe that he created with his access to this objective morality would only be acceptable in a world where God could explain to me why children die of cancer after a few short years of suffering. Why they're allowed to starve and die when a hundred other better systems than the human body can exist.

God was omniscient and omnipotent before he created the universe. If this is true, He would have had the ability to choose which universe came into existence. If this is true, And he chose this one, Then this must be the most moral universe that could exist (if he's morally good). There is no reason to think this is true. God's morality is entirely might makes right until he explains to us why the most evil things in the world create the best moral outcomes from a consequentialist's perspective.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
omar2345

Con

Or just the way that best benefits himself? - Even if he does that we would not know. To us we would see the right God is doing but to God he is using us. I don't see how answering this question would benefit us any way. If we became omnipotent we would have the same power as God. Everyone is God and now no one is God because we all are.

But he could also know that the best way to serve him is Scenario A. Scenario B would be the best way to serve man. Scenario C would be the best for both, But less for either- Don't know what you mean. Assuming each scenario as an option. Everything is a toss up with the positive and negatives. What God would do is either act selfishly or selflessly. Either it benefits us more then it benefits it or it would benefit itself more. We would be none the wise.

How could we know that this is not just an intelligent person taking advantage of us? - An intelligent would not be consistent enough to make right on our demands. An intelligent person is not intelligent in everything only in what he is capable of. It is like asking a scientist to work out your finances. To me even an intelligent person has flaws but a God with the two powers I gave him would be something more then an intelligent person. A God which is why he is titled that.

Mean that you are going to be good? - I wouldn't know but God can trick us into thinking so. Doing that us as humans would say God is good and be none the wiser with what God is actually planning. A God is a power beyond us. I don't we would come close if it did exist because the powers must first be investigated and then tried to see if it can be implemented into humans. I highly doubt God is just going to sit by and let it happen. Either he changes the scientists motives by getting him laid or something or murder him to stop humans becoming God.

why children die of cancer after a few short years of suffering- God can simply show you that murdering him now would result in a quicker death so that the human does not need to suffer if he did live as long as he could. God can also say there is heaven and show you the cancer child is happy. We make judgements on our five senses. If God can manipulate by being all-knowing he can make it as though you are really seeing heaven and the child is at a better. Assuming God is evil. If he isn't then it won't be manipulation it will be truth.

Why they're allowed to starve and die when a hundred other better systems than the human body can exist. - Similar argument above just change the subjects.

The might makes right argument would require knowledge of God not acting for us but since he has not shown himself and has helped us. That is remain to be seen. The only way we can prove this theory is to have the same powers of God.

About the Might makes right argument. Whether or not we think it is the case. God can BS and tell all of us it is a lie. By knowing every scenario he can target everyone individually and make sure that arguments is debunked and we would be none the wiser because God is a higher being and if he did decide to show in the sky then we couldn't anything against him if the powers I gave him were actual.

Don't know how someone is going to vote on this.

The least that I can hope for is that someone has learnt something from this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
It's accurate in many respects.

People who criticize it seem to be protesting "We aren't exactly the same. " Which is an assertion the proponents for it don't seem to be making.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
What do you think of the horseshoe theory?

My stance is that it is right. The further the left goes and the further the right goes the more they resemble on another.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Can you tell me what =P is?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
We can't understand it to put it into the said theory so it would be a claim without evidence.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Saying we couldn't do anything about it is nearly identical to saying it's a might makes right argument. =p
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Like a God"

Is a simile. What I would say for my example for this is confirmation bias. This can be going through the same pattern every day and not knowing what you are doing. Whether it be watching CNN all day or Fox. You have still restricted to one view point and seeing the other side in the best way. Another example is Anarchists. Stalin, Mao has become their God.

I am using God loosely. I would say God, In this scenario, Is someone above us and cannot be questioned, If questioned results in the erosion of the God in question if they understood it correctly, If I had to define it.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
Saying that atheists create laws and rules for themselves, I. E. Morality, Is fair. Not *all* atheists do sure. We have various systems. I'm not saying all atheists conform to the same system.

There's no misunderstanding of what atheist means on my part, But an atheist certainly can't worship something 'like a god' without believing it exists in some form or fashion.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I think both of you are conflating what an Atheist is.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Anything else is up to them. An atheist can worship idols like a God and fall into the same trap without realising that they are making the same mistakes. That is one of many differences since the definition above is the only idea that atheist unanimously agree on.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
GuitarSlinger,

Nowhere do I say morality is not Objective. I say God is not a source for it in this debate.

No atheist will say he knows that morality isn't objective. If we have no basis for it then we can't simply do nothing in the meantime and we have to struggle our way to finding it. This is not a contradictory position.

The difference is whether or not objective morality can ever be known. With the line at starbucks example, We've set rules for society. A social contract. Cutting in line is known as a dick move. That doesn't mean it objectively is so. Cutting in line being wrong is a subjective opinion if we have no basis for saying otherwise, But it is a general rule we've all agreed on. Perhaps you misunderstand the difference between objective and subjective? Our rules and laws are all subjective. I don't think you understand the difference.

Atheists are all LOOKING for objective morality. That doesn't mean we'll find it. Until then, We use subjective laws and rules and argue, Debate, And change them when some amount of consensus can be reached. This doesn't mean they're objectively true, I. E. Slavery, Prohibition, Et cetera. It just means they're the best rules we can draw for society at this point. No one is saying they're objectively true.

None of this is an argument for God.

You present no argument except for might is right and say its because I'm not educated enough in fundamentals to begin to comprehend it? Please educate me on what fundamentals I'm lacking. It certainly isn't any of the things you actually listed. When teaching advanced concepts you typically tell the student what the advanced concept is and then break it down from there. You've told me I'm inadequate for the conversation before it's even begun and you expect me to find that satisfactory? I can't begin to imagine how someone who thinks laws and rules made by society are appeals to 'objective morality' believes he understands a concept I can't even begin to.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
NOpe. All I am doing is trying to clarify. Just because people behave as if morality is subjective (i. E. MIGHT makes RIGHT) doesn't mean morality is actually subjective, What is that person (or group of people) is looking internal to decide what is right. Again, To use an example (perhaps exagerrated, But it illustrates my point), If I say "gravity" is now null and void, That doesn't make it so. Perhaps I (or a group of people) can redefine. I (or a group of people) can behave as if Oranges are blue, But that doesn't make it so.

Nope I can give you other reasons other than he is Strong (MIGHT is Right), But that would require a lengthy discussion/debate on what is truth, God, Etc. One can't dive first into Nuclear Physics, One must first start with the basics (math) and then work to show others Nuclear Physics.

You can say all you that you believe morality is subjective, But I'm willing to bet a lot of money that you (and other atheists) don't behave or live your lives that way. If you are in line at Starbucks and someone happens to cut in front of you, I'm sure wouldn't stand for it, Calling it unfair-- essentially appealing to some "standard" that is outside of you and the person that cut in front of you-- i. E. An objective morality.

The fact that we have rules and laws hints to morality being objective. We don't let people be their own guide when it comes to determining right from wrong-- that would be subjective. We tell them to be objective and look "outside themselves" when determining right from wrong.

I would counter your last statement and say "No, Atheists do not think truth is out there". If the Atheist is looking "out there" for Truth, That means they are looking outward (being objective), Not inward (not being subjective) for Truth/Morality.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
Leaning
Thohtomar2345Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Eh, honestly I can't seem to follow the debate well enough to have an understanding of exactly what is being discussed or who might have won. So, my vote is a tie. I don't think I would say this is because of the debaters, just my current frame of mind, or perhaps usual mind.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.