The Laws of Morality Prove Creator
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
I encourage to look for sources to prove me wrong, but the sources cannot be used in the debate. People tend to write one or two sentences make a claim and then ask you to read a long source. So no sources allowed written in the debate. Do your research then come back to me. You have a week!
Pro completely drops the charge of plagiarism. Pro also does not even acknowledge that he dishonestly copy and pasted someone else’s arguments in R1.
As pro has not offered an argument to support his position, pro has not met his burden of proof.
1.) No such thing as moral law
Morality is learned and based on an individuals ability to empathize: both of which can be changed and modified. Pro does not contest these points, or the evidence I provided to support it.
As morality is based on empathy, many decisions are largely sensible and the same for all humans (we don’t want to be murdered, so empathy implies we will find murder to be wrong).
There are limits to this: murder is okay in self defence, in parts of military operations, and the murder of innocents is okay if an intentional bombing campaign accidentally kills people. Even murdering babies - killing a random baby is bad, killing baby hitler, probably not so much : this is to say that even in the case of murder that pro argues is universally bad is quite obviously a complex moral topic that everyone differs upon.
Pro claims that in a subjective system that there is no objective way to determine whether any individual morality is better then any other.
In presupposing that there is an objective way to determine one morality is better than other, pro is begging the very question he must prove as part of the resolution.
Pro cannot presuppose his moral law into existence; if pro feels there is an objective moral law that can be used to tell whether my morality is better or worse than yours: pro should explain what it is, how he can tell it’s valid, and how it is separate and distinct from any individual humans subjective morality.
2.) Evolutionary imperative
In the last round I showed a valid evolutionary benefit of morality.
Pro asks : “You use the example of murder in society as an example of it not benefiting a society and actually harming it. Let me ask was Nazi Germany harmed for its mass murder of people? How about cannibals their society was never harmed for their practices. What about the Aztecs? Or Mao, or Stalin? All these places were not harmed for their mass genocide.”
None of these examples are the small social groupings of animals, in which murder, or disruptive behaviour within the group would lead to potential collapse of the entire group and the death or harm of its members - and thus would present an evolutionary imperative.
Thus pros argument is really a straw man, as it is dealing with a misrepresentation of my position (that any murder will harm any society and thus must be immoral, rather than that murder in a small group can harm that group and provides evolutionary pressure for morality).
Pro does however shoot himself in the foot: The aztecs, Nazis, Mao, Stalin, Cannibals and the immoral behaviour of people is all largely explained by my thesis:
If morality was objective and universal - humans almost all invariably and repeatedly acted immorally knowing that their behaviour and actions were wrong, which does not explain how so many people over such a long period could all act so ubiquitously immoral, only for us now to have managed to work out what we should do.
If morality is subjective and mutable, good people can easily be driven to bad actions by the ability to suppress or suspend empathy against another group - leading to both moral changes over time, and cases where a society may commit atrocities.
Thus it appears clearly the case that morality looks as if it is inherently subjective and not caused by some objective moral edict coming from an external entity.
“If morals are subjective then there is no reason to have courts of law, because after all one is determining ones own sets of morals. Therefore I can murder or lie in order to get what I want or need to survive. If I need $1000 why not murder people and get what I need? If I am taken to court I just say that survival of the fittest was the reason I murdered.”
“However, with the God of the Bible, murder is always wrong, for it is taking the life of someone who does not deserve to die. Lying is wrong, no matter the circumstance.”
“I also want to say that in small social groupings of animals say in the jungles of Africa, actually do murder other animals in order to get food. “
“Why did humans decide to act cooperatively when evolution is supposed to be about survival of the fittest? Also why does man still need to act cooperatively instead of fitting his way to survive? Or is survival of the fittest off the evolutionary grid?”
3. Therefore, God exists.
Con has no basis to question God's character since he believes morality is based on a matter of opinion.
“Second, Con does not know God's sense of justice and His view of sin”
“He is perfectly right in meeting out the justice that comes as a consequence of breaking His moral law”
Pro forfeited the last round, plagiarized his opening, failed to acknowledge his lack of attribution, and sources the Bible despite claiming no sources were to be used.
This is clearly poor conduct.
I have demonstrated that “Moral law” doesn’t exist, that morality is changeable and different from person to person; even on matters of murder and genocide, there is no clear and definitive law.
I have also shown that morality as observed in humans appears to be subjective and based on a combination of learned values and our ability to empathize.
I have also shown that not only does such a system refute the existence of objective moral law, but it also has an evolutionary imperative that renders it likely without a creator.
Pro drops most of this, and asserts that a moral law exist, and only defends this using a series of objectively false claims - such as even remote tribes thinking murder is wrong, and Gods law is objective and inviolable.
As a result, arguments should clear be given to con.