Instigator / Pro

QUICK DEBATE: Objective morality, does it exist?

Debating

Waiting for contender's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
3,000
Contender / Con
Description
This is meant to serve as a short demo debate so I can assess the potential of a full debate later on.
I will be PRO, which means I am arguing objective morality exists.
DEFINITIONS:
Objective morality: objective morality is defined by philosopher and professor Justin McBryer as a fundamentally universal and true ethical good that transcends all people.
Exists: To exist is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "to be; have the ability to be known, recognized, or understood." This means that even if we humans cannot recognize it, objective morality is still capable of existing.
ROUND STRUCTURE:
Round 1: Constructive
Round 2: Rebuttal
Round 3: Defense
**RULES**
1. No Kritiks
2. No New arguments made in final round
3. No trolling
4. You must follow the Debate Structure
5. No Plagiarism
6. Must follow debate definitions.
**ANY violation of these warrants loss of debate.**
Round 1
Published:
Thanks, Death23, for accepting.

Judges, refer to description for definitions.

There are (at least) two lines of reasoning that we can use to prove objective morality. 

A. Intuition.

P1: If morality is objective, then we can expect virtually universal use of a standard set of moral principles.

P2: All humans use and appeal to this standard, if only subconsciously. 

C1: Morality is objective.

Let’s work through this. Whenever two men have a dispute, the one side tries to convince the other that they have violated a standard of good conduct that they both share, while the other argues that they have not violated such a standard. 

If there were not a shared standard between them, such an argument would be pointless, as one could simply say “to hell with your standard.” If that were the case, we could not condemn genocide, rape, or any other cruel act because we could not compare it to a universal standard of good conduct. Similarly, you can not argue that a football player committed a foul if the rules of football are not universally true.

Since we DO make disputes/condemnations, this universal standard must exist. Thus, we affirm daily that morality is indeed objective.

B. Probability

P1: If a god exists, then objective morality is true. (This is because the god would be the definition of good itself. i.e. that god's "will" would be standard for "good" conduct.)

P2: It is likely that god exists.

C1:  Morality is likely objective.

P2 is likely where disagreement will arise. 

I have two proofs of a god’s existence:

  1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Proponents of a naturalist theory will have to propose that, in order to explain everything in the universe, there took place the biggest possible violation of the basic laws of physics 14 billion years ago.

The theist has a much easier time justifying the Big Bang Theory: a god was the “uncaused first cause.” This one assumption that there is a god is vastly more probable than the infinite line of illogical assumptions that one has to make to otherwise justify pure naturalist theory. 


  1. Biogenesis
For a singular gene to arrive by chance, as Creation 1, no 1 (June 1978): 9-10, explains

“let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”

The theist has no quarrel with these vast improbabilities. Theism instead posits a god controlled these events.

And thus, since a god would mean objective standard, we can safely arrive to our conclusion that morality is indeed objective.

Thank you.


Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
Extend above arguments. I consent to allow my opponent to give both his constructive and rebuttal during the rebuttal round. 
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @Death23
So be it, I will try to not forfeit.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @christopher_best
Re: A more full debate at a later time - No objection. Re: Terminating this debate - I do not consent to that at this time.
Contender
#6
Added:
--> @Death23
Actually, if I'm honest, I have struggled to find time this week. I will likely struggle to have it the next time around too. For the sake of my sanity, would you be alright with canning this one right now? I think we should commit to a more full debate on it between us, maybe during my spring break.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @christopher_best
Is it gonna happen?
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @Death23
Thanks for accepting!
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @Zaradi
I'm not a fan of kritiks... maybe I am a bore.
Instigator
#2
Added:
"1. No kritiks."
You're no fun...
#1
No votes yet