Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

God is not necessary for objective morality

Status
Debating

Waiting for the instigator's fourth argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
1434
rating
56
debates
28.57%
won
Description
~ 495 / 5,000

I, Jarrett_Ludolph, will be supporting the position that God is not necessary for objective morality, while my opponent will be supporting the position that God is necessary for objective morality. the winner will be the debater who supports their position the best. Note that we are not debating whether God is necessary morality itself, (for example, subjective morality can exist without objective morality),or if you need to be religious to be a good person. I look forward to a good debate.

Round 1
Pro
sorry for the short time to post the argument, crossed, I didn't even notice you could make it a longer time (silly me) we could always do another debate with maybe a week or tow to respond

My main argument for my position is that since other theories of ethics exist, it is not necessary to subscribe to Divine Command Theory(the idea that ethics comes from a God)[1]. The theory of ethics I will be proposing in this debate is Utilitarianism, founded by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, and supported by John Stuart Mill[2]. 

Utilitarianism rests on the axiom that the greatest amount of good for the greatest number is the foundation of objective morality. to define good can be as follows:  of a favorable character or tendency[3]. if good can be defined as follows, then we can make objective decisions of what is best for people. For example, democracies are better than dictatorships, since democracies give freedom, and basic human rights to the people, and this is maximizing the most good for the most number.

Also, I will be giving a main argument against my opponent's position. The argument is called the the Euthyphro Dilemma[4], and it is as follows:
is something good because God wills it? 
or
does God wills it, because it is good?

if something is good because God wills it, then some very problematic things are evident:
1- the problem of arbitrariness - there is no standard, God makes something good on a whim, should we really listen to such a God?
2- the problem of triviality -  such commands would use circular reasoning, what is good? what God says? but what does God say? what is good. circular reasoning is bad reasoning
3-  the problem of abhorrent commands -  if God said murder was right, that would make it right, on Divine Command Theory. but murder is clearly wrong. God could allow alot of bad things to be good, if he only choose differently.
if God wills something because it is good, then God would get his morality from another source other than is own, and we could just cut out the divine middle man.

thank you, crossed, for accepting this debate. the best of luck to you. 


 [1] https://iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ (only have to read the first paragraph)

 
Con
I would first like to present my argument before doing my rebuttal

  • A man died from a broken heart after his wife died. This is proof of a soul

Losing a loved one really can cause someone to die from a broken heart, scientists claim.

  • A man lifted a 3000 pound car off a small child. Through the power of love. He became superman and lifted a 3000-pound car This is proof of a soul
  • He lifted 2000 pounds more then what the strongest man on earth could through the power of love.

"As I write in the story, Boyle accomplished an almost unthinkable
feat of strength. The world record for dead-lifting a barbell is 1,003
pounds. A stock Camaro weighs 3000 pounds. So how did Boyle pull it off?"



  • A bunch of babies died from lack of love. They were fed and watered and medicated. But because they lacked love they died. This is proof of a soul
Most of these deaths were not due to starvation or disease, but to severe emotional and sensorial deprivation – in other words, a lack of love. These babies were fed and medically treated, but they were absolutely deprived of important stimulation, especially touch and affection.





I bring these supernatural events to you attention for a reason.A man lifted a  3000 pound car off a small child through the power of love is a supernatural event. We will call events like this spiritual morality for convenience.If i killed and raped a bunch of children and my eyes turned red or yellow. That would be spiritual morality. If I lifted a 3000 pound car off a small child through the power of love. That would be spiritual morality. If a bunch of babies died from lack of love because they lacked love. That would be spiritual morality. if i get a spiritual disease that force's me to eat humans flesh molest children and cannibalize my arm. That would be spiritual morality. Giving to others can increase your life span by 5 years and help treat  disease's like HIV. That would be spiritual morality.


Giving is good for our health. A wide range of research has linked different forms of generosity to better health, even among the sick and elderly. In his book Why Good Things Happen to Good People, Stephen Post, a professor of preventative medicine at Stony Brook University, reports that giving to others has been shown to increase health benefits in people with chronic illness, including HIV and multiple sclerosis.


Spiritual morality existence means that morality is really not objective for you and me but biological. It is only objective to god. people dying from lack of love or getting super human strength through the power of love show that morals are biological but not objective. The only one who morals would be objective to are hardened heart people and god. Everyone else they are biological. So since god and hardened hearts people are the only ones who can have true objective morality. God is necessary for objective morality. Morals are not something you and I come up with. But are divine commands written into nature




Rebuttal

Some of cons arguments have less to do with gods not necessary for objective morality. But more i do not like gods' morality.

lso, I will be giving a main argument against my opponent's position. The argument is called the the Euthyphro Dilemma[4], and it is as follows:
is something good because God wills it? 
does God wills it, because it is good?
if something is good because God wills it, then some very problematic things are evident:
1- the problem of arbitrariness - there is no standard, God makes something good on a whim, should we really listen to such a God?
This has nothing to do with god being necessary for morality. But more i do not like god morality. There is very little we can do about god burning people for all eternity. God has declared that good.It is justice.It is the same as executing a murder. Is it morally wrong for the American government to give the death penalty to people? THey commited a crime.It is only justice to deleiver wrath upon evil.To bring justice to the victims. God has programmed his moral system into us.If i cry It is because god has programmed me to react that way because of his morals.I if i do not cry.THen god does not  see that as morally evil.God has kicked some people out of this moral system by hardening there hearts


he problem of triviality -  such commands would use circular reasoning, what is good? what God says? but what does God say? what is good. circular reasoning is bad reasoning
3-  the problem of abhorrent commands -  if God said murder was right, that would make it right, on Divine Command Theory. but murder is clearly wrong. God could allow alot of bad things to be good, if he only choose differently.
This is more i do not like God's morals. Not God's not necessary for morals. Murder is ok when god does it but not ok when you and I do it. This is because he is god and we can not put our morals on him because god created morals. God created our chemicals in our brain.When something bad happens i cry. If something good happens i do not cry.If my dog dies i cry because god has programmed me to do that  that if something bad happens. If a pedophile dies i do not cry.Because god has not programmed me to not cry because that is a good thing according to god.God has programmed us to react to right or wrongs according to his morals.He kicks people out of this moral system by hardening there hearts but thats a diffrent topic.


if God wills something because it is good, then God would get his morality from another source other than is own, and we could just cut out the divine middle man.
Luckily god has not done this.He created everything.So it is only fair that he gets to decide what he created is either good or bad.God created sex.So god can call man and woman breeding good.But call guy and guy bad.Because he created it.It is evil for man and mad to breed. God has declared it evil. He has programmed bad stuff to happen if man and man breeds like hiv. Man and mad relationships hurt children if they choose to adopt. Kids of gay parents fare worst then normal children. Because how God originally designed it works better. Children need a strong person and a loving person.IT does not work when THe roles are messed up.You can say god calls it evil because children require a male role and a female role are required for children. If they lack one the children suffer


Ultranarinism

I did not know what this was at first. I had to watch a video that explains it.

The video put it like this.Batman catches the joker. Should batman kill the joker.If he does not kill the joker.Joker will escape from prison and kill more lives. So is batman responsible for jokers future kills if he decides to let him live? God has used this logic in the bible. God commanded Saul to kill all the Amalekites. God wanted thousands of people murdered. Because there descendants hundreds of years from then would enslave isreal people for a very long time. So god wanted saul to kill all the amalikites  so there decendents are never born so they can not enslave isreals people.God has used this logic in the bible.I do not understand how it disproves god not necessary for morality.

Round 2
Pro
"man died from a broken heart after his wife died. This is proof of a soul"

How is this proof of a soul? Like all your other "proofs" of a soul, you just say something and say "therefore soul", however nothing you said proves souls.

 I have an explanation for every one of your proofs.

In the document you presented, the author gave an explanation that doesn't require a soul, it is as follows:

"They found that the ability of neutrophils to fight bacteria was lower in people who had suffered a bereavement.

They also had raised levels of the stress hormone cortisol, which is known to suppress the activity of neutrophils making them less active."

The people died of a broken immune system, technically, not a broken heart, because the increase of stress harms their immune system. This has nothing to do with a soul.

To quote the article again: 

"They say that intense grief weakens the body’s immune system leaving it more vulnerable to infections.

Academics from the University of Birmingham have found that increased stress levels and depression brought on by bereavement interferes with a type of white blood cell called neutrophils.

These are key to fighting certain bacterial infections"

Nothing in he article even mentions a soul, why are you trying to make it sound like it did? 

"A man lifted a 3000 pound car off a small child. Through the power of love. He became superman and lifted a 3000-pound car This is proof of a soul"

No it isn't, if you read the article completely, there is an explanation for this, that doesn't require a soul. 
It comes from a comment on the article:

When you dead-lift a barbell, you have to pick it completely off the ground. Presumably, Mr. Boyle only lifted two wheels off the ground, as opposed to lifting the car completely over his head and spinning it on his finger.

I understand that wasn't the point of the article, but don't mislead people with numbers to make your point.

Also, another comment built on this, saying that since he only lifted the back tires, he wouldn't be lifting 3,000 pounds

"He would have been "deadlifting" just a few hundred pounds, probably less than 500. An impressive feat for a non-bodybuilder, but nowhere near a world record."

The man only lifted the back of the car only a couple of inches, not the whole car above his head, like how your trying to make it sound like. To quote the article you gave directly (not the comments):

Without hesitating Boyle bent down, grabbed the bottom of the chassis, and lifted with everything he had. Slowly, the car's frame rose a few inches. 

Everyone who read the article came to the opposite conclusion of you, so you're clearly reading something wrong here. The comments show this to be true.

"A bunch of babies died from lack of love. They were fed and watered and medicated. But because they lacked love they died. This is proof of a soul"

The deaths are caused by the lack of skin to skin touch, which is biological necessary, there's not even a reference to souls in the article you linked. To quote the article directly:

Human touch is fundamental for human development and survival. Research conducted by Ruth Feldman and Tiffany Field has shown the positive effects that come from skin-to-skin touch in premature babies and that these effects are still at work after ten years. Significant gains in neurological development, weight gain, and mental development of premature babies have been shown to be triggered by skin-to-skin stimulation.

"I bring these supernatural events to you attention for a reason."

Even though you see it as supernatural, the articles never use the words: soul, supernatural, or God. The articles, as I just said, don't support the supernatural, in fact, the authors of the articles never invoked the supernatural, the authors of the articles never even mentioned the supernatural.

"Giving to others can increase your life span by 5 years and help treat  disease's like HIV. That would be spiritual morality."

Yes, it's good for your health, but you don't need to invoke a God for it, why not just say they affect you biologically? That's a genuine reason, we don't need to envoke the supernatural. Also, again, the article you quoted didn't even mention a supernatural or God, so why are you trying to make it sound like they did?

"This has nothing to do with god being necessary for morality. But more i do not like god morality."

With all do respect, if you knew what the Euthyphro Dilemma was, you wouldn't have said that. It's not "I do not like God's morality" it's "God's morality seems fundamentally flawed". So I ask again: What does God base his morality on? If it's based on something, then there's a standard independent from God. If he doesn't base it on something, there's no standard. 

You also said hell is similar to the death sentence, therefore, it's just.

I have a couple of objections here. Firstly, I against the deaths sentence, so that argument doesn't work for me. Just because someone killed someone else, that doesn't mean you kill him back I'm not for "an eye for an eye" morality. To quote Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"[1]
You cannot repay evil with evil.
Also, hell is infinite toture for finite sin, it's overkill, to much punishment. If I disobey God, I go to hell, and you think it's okay. However, if I disobeyed my father, and he burned me for it, you (assumeingly) think it's abhorrent, however being burnt to death is no where near the torture God gives to humans when they disobey him. It's not that I don't like it, it's because it's a violation of human rights.

"Murder is ok when god does it but not ok when you and I do it."

Firstly, this is only an objection to Abhorrent commands, not triviality. God's morality is circular, meaning:

 A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.[2]

You say that good is what is Godly, and what is Godly is good. This is a circle in logic, no useful information is given. When you say giving is good, it's because it's Godly. But what is Godly? good. You made a circle and used bad logic.

As for God can murder people, you give no explanation, why can he murder people? You use circular reasoning to justify it.

This is because he is god 

and we can not put our morals on him 

because god created morals. 

Because he is God.

Why can God create morals and we can't? It's because he's God. Again, you give no justification for why God can create morals other than "because", and "because" isn't an answer sophisticated for a debate. What makes him different from us, so that we must put our morals on him, and not ourselves?

"Luckily god has not done this.He created everything.So it is only fair that he gets to decide what he created is either good or bad."

Give proof that God created everything. With all do respect,  this is just a baseless assertion if you do not proove it. 

"God has declared it evil. He has programmed bad stuff to happen if man and man breeds like hiv."

HIV is a sexually transmitted diesease, a women can pass on HIV to a man, not just gay people get this. Also, you give no proof God created HIV. Again, with all do respect, this is just a baseless assertion until you bring evidence.

"Kids of gay parents fare worst then normal children. Because how God originally designed it works better."

Again, if you read the article all the way through, it's not because God did this, or that it's supernatural, it's because of other things. To quote the article directly: 

Several experts and advocacy groups have taken issue with the study's methodology, saying a comparison of children of a lesbian mother -- who herself may have divorced the child's biological father, or may not even identify as a lesbian since the survey only asked if a parent had ever been in a same-sex couple during their childhood --  is an unfair, flawed comparison.

Even the article itself said the study was flawed. To quote the article directly again:

Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus' descriptive analysis," said Cynthia Osborne, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin. "Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures, and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage or living with a single parent. Or it is quite possible that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining 'normal relationships'."

The article said that these effects may be because of the stigma around homosexuality, it's because people like you say there're evil and sinfully, you think they deserve enteral torture, and that's what causes their surffering. Honestly, to say love under certain conditions (for example, homosexual love) is evil, is disgusting. 

"God has kicked some people out of this moral system by hardening there hearts" 

Why does God do this, why would he harden someone's heart, and kick them out for having a hardened heart? That's blaming the victimized.(I know you said it was a different topic, but I had to point it out).

I'm not trying to be mean, your probably a great person, however, some of your morality (external torture of humans, homosexual love is evil) are unjustifiable. Again, it's not "I don't like God's morality' it's "God's morality is fundamentally flawed". 


[1]
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi_107039
[2] 
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Circular-Reasoning

Con
If i kill a bunch of people and my eye's turn yellow.Would telling me that my brain released Tartrazine into my eye's to make them yellow.Would telling me this make it not a supernatural event.Of course not.This is a rebuttal to.People dieing from lack of love and lifting a thousand pound car through the power of love

Also, another comment built on this, saying that since he only lifted the back tires, he wouldn't be lifting 3,000 pounds
He would be lifting everything up to the front tire's.which is most of the car.

Even though you see it as supernatural, the articles never use the words: soul, supernatural, or God.
I know it does not say anything about supernatural or soul or god.I am the one who is saying that.I am forming my own conclusions with the information given to me.

Giving to others
How can giving to others help treat disease's and increase your life. The most logical explanation is something like this is happening.How can giving to thers make you happy as well


honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with ... “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his ... and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock.

1 Kings 3:14 ESV / 8 helpful votes

And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”

Proverbs 10:27 ESV / 8 helpful votes

The fear of the Lord prolongs life, but the years of the wicked will be short.


Lieing to others can decrease your life span


Can telling lies shorten your life?


This has nothing to do with god being necessary for morality. But more i do not like god morality."
With all do respect, if you knew what the Euthyphro Dilemma was, you wouldn't have said that. It's not "I do not like God's morality" it's "God's morality seems fundamentally flawed"
I have a couple of objections here. Firstly, I against the deaths sentence, so that argument doesn't work for me. Just because someone killed someone else, that doesn't mean you kill him back I'm not for "an eye for an eye" morality. To quote Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"[1]
You cannot repay evil with evil.
Also, hell is infinite toture for finite sin, it's overkill, to much punishment. If I disobey God, I go to hell, and you think it's okay. However, if I disobeyed my father, and he burned me for it, you (assumeingly) think it's abhorrent, however being burnt to death is no where near the torture God gives to humans when they disobey him. It's not that I don't like it, it's because it's a violation of human rights.

Your saying gods moral system is flawed because you do not like it.So yes you are saying gods moral system is flawed because i do not like it .So yes you are saying i do not like gods moral system. God based his moral system on what he wills to be good and bad. The only reason i do this is because god is going to burn people for all eternity.He makes it very simple to escape this.But people do not want to acknowledge there is a god.It is because he is said he would burn you forever for doing fun thing like lying and breeding and stuff. We can do very little about it.He is a ruler so he decides whats morally right and wrong.Like i said morals are only objective to him and cold hearted people.The only reason i do this is because hell.A god creating hell or being immoral in your eye's.Does not disprove god.Because eternal damnation is something a god would do.Making people worship a god is something a god would do.So how does a god doing all these thing disprove a god.When that is something a god would do.God created morality. When i am happy cheicle's are released to make me happy.When i am sad chemical's are release to make me sad.God created morality.He chose which type's of scenario's people would most likely get upset at. We may be robots but god has attempted to make us more he has created what i call spiritual morality.Through the power of love i can life a car off a small child. Giving to others can increase my life span.This means love is more then just a chemical in the brain.Gods does not violate human rights because god gives us human rights.It is my god given right to oppose a oppressive goverment.IT is my god given right to live free.

"Murder is ok when god does it but not ok when you and I do it."
death is not the end.Which really change's how bad death is.We are all going to be resurrected at the end of day's. For eternal life or eternal damnation.Death loose's it's meaning if you do not stop living.


Someone has to right the wrong

If someone molest a child someone has to pay for that.If you steal something.You have to pay for that.All crime is a crime.



Why can God create morals and we can't?
Because God created everything. He created you.There is a moral law written in nature itself with spiritual morality.Like i said.He created breeding. A guy on girl good.Guy on guy.Guy on child bad. He simply want's his creations to do thing's as they were created to be.

Soul
Soul is defined as the power of love makes you strong in many kids shows.IN the ds game fossil fighters champions a character who is emo and hates everybody.Is described as soulless  because he did not believe in friendship and magic.I cringed when i said that.I hate these debate''s i am morally evil



God destroyer of evil and helps the good.If someone killed nazi and racist.Humans have come up with the same moral system as god has.Even thoughh we call both evil.People hang murder's and rapist. Because it is the most logical thing to do.







Round 3
Pro
crossed has repeatedly asserted that God created everything, however he has not proven it. crossed has never brought any evidence to proof that God created the universe, so I must conclude that God did not create the universe. Since his justification for God creating morality is that he created the universe, and crossed has not proven that God did create the universe, I must conclude that God did not create morality. 

Also, crossed has conceded that the articles that he presented do not include God, he has confided that he made the conclusion himself. Since crossed is using the articles incorrectly, and making up his own conclusions, rather than accepting the article's author's conclusions, his arguments are useless. The articles do not support his conclusion because he is adding something to the articles that do not belong there. 

Also, crossed has not addressed my arguments showing that infants dying from the lack of love, couples dying from a broken heart, and giving to others, do not require a soul, there are other explanations given in the articles themselves. There is no soul involved

"And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”

Show that people that keep the ten commandments have longer lives. You have not given any evidence that when someone follows all of the commandments, they will live longer, this is a baseless assertion.

"Lieing to others can decrease your life span"

Yes, it can, however, this is not God doing it, however the release of stress hormones, that increase blood pressure, and shortens your life. To quote the article directly:

"Fibbing releases stress hormones that can increase heart rate, blood pressure and respiration. The research suggests that lying often enough and long enough could cause damage to the heart and arteries."

God is not shorting the lives of liers, it's the release of stress hormones, stop reading half an article, and saying God did it, instead read the entire article, and an explanation will be given. Again, all your 'proofs' do not work, because there's another explanation then invoking the supernatural. 

"Your saying gods moral system is flawed because you do not like it.So yes you are saying gods moral system is flawed because i do not like it"

No. It does not matter what I personally like or dislike, I'm saying it's flawed because it's wrong, not because I don't like it. It's wrong because God does not have a standard for morality. You claim he can make the rules because he created everything, however, you haven't brought any proof that he created everything. 

"god is going to burn people for all eternity.He makes it very simple to escape this.But people do not want to acknowledge there is a god."

It's not that I don't want to bow down to God, it's that there's no evidence for it. (Unless you can bring some of course). 

"So how does a god doing all these thing disprove a god."

I never claimed that since God (if he existed) tortures people enterally that he doesn't exist. I said that since this God would, that he isn't good since torture isn't good, society has moved past from torturing people. 

"God created morality"

There's no evidence for this either.

"morality.Through the power of love i can life a car off a small child."

I'm going to assume you meant lift, not life. 
I don't you believe you can lift up a car, go ahead and send be a video that's impossible. I'll wait. Again, the man only lifted up some of the car a few inches, not the whole thing above his head

"Giving to others can increase my life span.This means love is more then just a chemical in the brain."

No, as the articles shown, your life span increases because of chemicals in the brain

"If someone molest a child someone has to pay for that.If you steal something.You have to pay for that.All crime is a crime."

Again, I'm not against punishment, it's that it's not much punishment. It's overkill. Enteral torture is to much punishment. I I stole something, the punishment by the government is not to burn him forever, it's to send him for jail for a finite time. Again, punishment is necessary, however, enteral punishment is too much. Again, it's like a father burning their child to death for disobedience. Disobedience must be punished, however, burning someone is not the way to do it.

"Because God created everything. He created you."

Again, there's no evidence God created everything. 

"People hang murder's and rapist. Because it is the most logical thing to do."

Again, just because someone killed someone, that doesn't mean you can kill them back. Eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. We can't just kill people off for doing something wrong, we must teach them to be good.


I'll like to stress again, that crossed never brought any evidence that God created everything, this is just a baseless assertion. God did not create everything.

Con
If i shoot fire balls out of my hand. does telling me that my hand released some kind of combustion hormone to make it happen make it not magic.No thats observed.if i kill a bunch of people and my eye's turn yellow.Would telling me that my brain released Tartrazine into my eye's to make them yellow.Would telling me this make it not a supernatural event.Of course not.This is a rebuttal to.People dyeing from lack of love and lifting a thousand pound car through the power of love.Telling me the mechanics of something does not disprove my case


Cons entire argement is i do not like gods morals.This has nothing to do with god he is necessary for morality. God only brings death and hellfire to people who have done wrong. God has never hurt an innocent person.It has nothing to do with god being unnecessary for objective morality.him saying gods morals are flawed are his opinions.If there was no punishment people would not stop doing the crime. There has to be punishment for crime or it would keep happening. If god did not throw hellfire on people.He would constantly have people try to become gods themselfs and overthrow him, 



Eye for an eye

There has to be law.Punishments are meant to stop people from doing something if i am told i would get the death penalty if i kill someone.I probably would not kill someone.




Rape stealing drinking milk from a carton pedophilia.Stealing a dollar candy bar from the store. Are all crimes committed with i want something so i take it The only difference is impact.Pedophilia is far worst then stealing a piece of candy because of impact.But both started the same way i wanted something so i committed a crime to get it.It just happens the things they wanted just happened to have different impact on others.. If i steal a candy bar.I do it because i want it.If i steal a million dollars i do it because i want it. Both crimes are committed with the same exact though process. because they wanted something that they could not have.The only difference is impact. stealing a million dollars is worst then a candy bar.Both crimes are done with the same exact intent.Why should the million dollars crime receive more punishment when there crime just happened to have a bigger impact.Almost all crimes are committed with the same though proccess. Why should one get held over the other because it has a bigger impact.
Drinking out of a carton of milk and killing are committed with the same though process. just one has a larger impact.Why should we hold one crime over the other just because it just happens to have a bigger impact.If i drink a carton of milk i do it without the care of others.I do it because i want something.Same as murder


Again, I'm not against punishment, it's that it's not much punishment. It's overkill. Enteral torture is to much punishment. I I stole something, the punishment by the government is not to burn him forever, it's to send him for jail for a finite time. Again, punishment is necessary, however, enteral punishment is too much. Again, it's like a father burning their child to death for disobedience. Disobedience must be punished, however, burning someone is not the way to do it.
This is i do not like gods moral system.This is notGod is necessary because of spiritual morality. Almost all crime is committed with the same thought process.I want something i take it The only real difference is the impact crime has.So a one size shoe fits all approach is what he has come up with

Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet