Instigator / Pro
10
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4367
Without divine authority, objective morality cannot exist.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
SkepticalOne
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,500
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,540
Contender / Con
14
1551
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Description
(Only SkepticalOne can accept this debate. Putting this here because it’s impossible to challenge him directly if a debate is Rated.
Anyone else accepts, they automatically concede.)
Definitions:
Objective Morality- 1. Right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion.
Objective- (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Morality- 1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. 2. A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
Divine- Of, relating to, or coming directly from God or a god.
Authority- The power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
Divine Authority- The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge by a supernatural force or supreme being.
Rules:
1. Pro argues that objective morality cannot exist without divine authority, Con argues that objective morality CAN exist without divine authority.
2. Definitions are for clarification and are not absolutes. They are liable to interpretation, should the justification be reasonable enough. Conversely, said interpretation can be rejected if it proves too absurd or is special pleading.
3. BOP is on Pro.
4. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point, two are an autoloss.
5. The winner is whoever proves their side, or supports their case more effectively than the opponent.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Mankind invented the existence of morality. Morality is an idea and a concept that differs from culture to culture and is relative to every individual.
Thereby making it a social construct. Animals are barbaric and too primitive by nature to comprehend something as complex as morality. Humans are the only intelligent and evolved enough species to attempt to traditionally define what constitutes an objective moral value.
Since morality exists only in the minds of human beings, then by what foundation do we have for objective moral values?
None.
If a supreme being exists, then he is the symbol for eternal goodness. And not just the symbol, but the ultimate model. Without a divine creator, we have no framework for which to judge moral values. But by having a supreme being as our model, he ultimately sets the standard for what morals are and can serve as the basis for defining what actions are good and what actions are evil.
Without a divine being, no such values exist and become a completely subjective thing. But with a supreme being, objective morality can exist independently of human belief.
Con
#2
First, I would like to thank Pro for suggesting and instigating this debate. This debate began because I questioned the proposition that Pro had stated in the forums. No answer was provided there, but hopefully we can hash it out here and determine exactly what is meant and if it has any merit. Before we continue, I just want mention I have not pre-read Pro’s first round and intend to address his arguments in the next round.
Pro hopes to convince us that objective morality can only exist with authority a divine being lends it. If I am going to steel man my opponent’s argument, I’d say he believes a divine being provides the standard by which we measure right or wrong actions and may act as some type of enforcer. Now, full disclosure, I’m an atheist, so I don’t think this is the case, but I acknowledge this is an accepted theory of objective morality.
The real question in this debate though is not whether morality requires Pro’s preferred deity, but whether a higher power is required for objectivity. The short answer is easily: gods are not required for something to be objective.
The rules of chess exist independent of individual human opinion and they are objective. Would Pro have us believe there is a god of chess to somehow make the rules objective? Science provides an objective means to understand our shared reality and it operates on methodological naturalism (sans gods). Mathematics came from human minds, works without the need for gods, and is the go-to example of philosophical objectivy.
Why should morality be different from these other human creations? This is my question for Pro.
Round 2
Pro
#3
The rules of chess exist independent of individual human opinion and they are objective. Would Pro have us believe there is a god of chess to somehow make the rules objective? Science provides an objective means to understand our shared reality and it operates on methodological naturalism (sans gods). Mathematics came from human minds, works without the need for gods, and is the go-to example of philosophical objectivy.Why should morality be different from these other human creations?
I consider this a False Equivalence.
- Chess - Chess is a strategy game that was invented for a specific purpose. The ‘rules’ of chess are a social construct and exists only in the minds of humans because we made it up and decided to abide by them. It is only because you and other people decide these rules have meaning, that they’re worth following. They do not exist objectively. But the game its self encourages analytical moves based on limited patterns.
- Mathematics - Mathematics is a form of science that uses advanced formulas to support conclusions based on concrete data and follows a method of empiricism to obtain reliable results.
Morality is unlike either of these two because it follows no such structure and is liable to change on a whim. It is based only on your own personal feelings validating what you believe to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’s expectations.
These value judgments follow no objective criteria and are based mostly on cultural religions & ethics.
As William Craig points out.:
l. Theism provides a consistent framework for objective moral values.
Theism ultimately provides a basis to determine the meaning of something, the rules that people should follow, and ways in which humans are to act.
If God does not exist, there is no foundation for objective moral values.
If God does not exist, what then is to make one person’s sense of right and wrong objectively superior to another man’s sense of right and wrong?
What do we base objective moral values on?
Questions Con must answer.:
- What is an example of objective morals? Can Con prove these morals are objectively correct?
- Without anyone to guide us, how do we arrive at our own conclusion of objective morality without a metaphorical internal or external compass?
Con
#4
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot!
Round 1 rebuttal
My opponent claims humanity invented morality. Agree. Healso claims it is a social construct. Agree. The he goes on to assert animalsare too primitive and barbaric to understand morality. I’m not sure I agree onthis one. We have many examples of animal behaving morally or in a moral-looking ways. Eg. Dolphins will attack sharks to protect other animalsincluding humans. Suffice to say, humans might be the only species to “traditionallydefine” objective moral values because, you know, dictionaries are kind of ourthing, but its probably not fair to say we are the only moral species.
Pro asks ‘if morality exists only in human minds what is thefoundation for objective moral values?’ The answer is in the question: humanminds. The fact that it is human minds, and not an individual mind, is what makes it objective: Everyone can follow along.
Withouta divine being, no such values exist and become a completely subjective thing.But with a supreme being, objective morality can exist independently of humanbelief.
Just to be clear, Pro is arguing morality is a humanconstruct AND a divine power is needed to make it work. It is an odd claim. It would be more coherent if the divine lawgiver were also the origin of moral law. Is my opponent suggesting a deity didn’t think of morality but recognized its usefulness andco-opted it? This is not consistent with an omniscient being. Not to mention, the opinions of a single being defining moral values is very much not objective.
Round 2 rebuttal
Moralityis unlike either of these two [chess;mathematics] because it follows no suchstructure and is liable to change on a whim.
There might not be ‘morality’ engines to evaluate moral decisions like chess,but that doesn’t make morality subjective. This difference between my examples andmorality is inconsequential. There is no false equivalence. Objectivity does not require structure.
It[morality] is based only on your own personal feelings validating what youbelieve to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’sexpectations.
If I understand correctly, Pro is suggesting structure is somehow a filter for opinion and a moral theory less structured than, say, mathematics, isdriven purely by personal feelings. This is a non sequitor. The absence of structuredoes not equal the absence of objectivity and vice versa.
l. Theism provides a consistent framework forobjective moral values.
William LaneCraig is Christian, so I simply ask my opponent to provide the Bible’s consistentand unchanging position on slavery, rape, or genocide. For the record, thereisn’t one. The Old Testament codifiesslavery, allows rapists to marry their victim, and has god-commanded genocide.Christians mostly take a different view in modern times with slavery, rape, and genocide generally being considered immoral. This is notconsistency.
If Goddoes not exist, what then is to make one person’s sense of right and wrongobjectively superior to another man’s sense of right and wrong?
One view is only “superior” if both individuals buy into thesame standard. For instance, a Muslim and a Christian most likely aren’tgoing to agree on a superior moral view from a religious standpoint, but they mightagree from a humanistic context. Humanity understandsa common form of moral measurement thanks to our shared heritage as members ofa social species. Primitive populations would have shunned members that werea detriment to the group. Most all of ourancestors (having presumably been deemed more valuable than harmful) would have typically chosen cooperation in a group rather than murder and mayhem.
To answer the question of which right and wrong are superior, we need a standard two parties can agree on. Is that going to be a ‘consistent’ theisticframework or something more fundamental like survival? My money is onthe latter.
Finally, Pro asks for an example of objective morals and proofthey are objectively correct. I willremind Pro, the burden is on him in this debate. Can Pro meet the burden he attempts to lay on me? As for the second question, Pro is assuming his conclusion. The absence of an external authority figure doesn't disallow a "metaphorical internal or external compass". Humanism is an example of a moral theory with an external standard that is not a being of any kind.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Rebuttals
“My opponent claims humanity invented morality. Agree. Healso claims it is a social construct. Agree. The he goes on to assert animalsare too primitive and barbaric to understand morality. I’m not sure I agree onthis one. We have many examples of animal behaving morally or in a moral-looking ways. Eg. Dolphins will attack sharks to protect other animalsincluding humans. Suffice to say, humans might be the only species to “traditionallydefine” objective moral values because, you know, dictionaries are kind of ourthing, but its probably not fair to say we are the only moral species.”
Humans want to believe that a dolphin is attacking a shark to save them because people are naturally narcissistic and want to assume the best intentions, but there is no proof this is true. This is what we call a Confirmation Bias.
- Dolphins and sharks are natural predators.
- Dolphins impulsively attack sharks on sight, regardless of a person’s presence with no concern of the human’s well-being. WATCH: Dolphins attack and kill shark - TVMnews.mt
- Dolphins are known to provoke divers and swimmers, with people assuming they’re being saved from drowning without realizing they’re prey being toyed with.
- Male Dolphins are also rapists.
A man discovered a wolverine and decided to test its morality by having someone bury him under a pile of snow and was then relieved when the wolverine “rescued” him. In truth, this wolverine was scavenging for food and assumed the man was its meal, so mistakenly dragged him out with this assumption in mind.
“Pro asks ‘if morality exists only in human minds what is thefoundation for objective moral values?’ The answer is in the question: humanminds. The fact that it is human minds, and not an individual mind, is what makes it objective: Everyone can follow along.”
False.
If humans suddenly decided that incest and cannibalism was not only necessary, but morally imperative. Would Con’s revulsion be objectively wrong because of his unwillingness to follow suit?
l. Human minds cannot be the foundation.
P1: Morality and beliefs are demonstrated to be different by groups and not all of these groups will agree on a neighbor’s different ethics and beliefs.
- If everyone in Europe decided sex before marriage is wrong and the instinct of preserving that belief became priority #1, who then determines that belief is more objectively superior to the belief that everyone in Africa decides that sex is required before marriage?
P2: Morality constantly evolves and changes over time. If left to human judgment, why are the beliefs, ethics, and values of a civilization shifting, changing, and adapting with new generations over the centuries?
P3: Con’s assertion makes no sense. As the definitions in the description deal with right and wrong existing objectively, independently of a person’s opinion of what constitutes good and evil, then it is logically absurd to claim that humans determine objective morality just because it is a matter of numbers vs the individual.
As Con has not contested any of the definitions in the description with a superior one, I advise voters to dismiss this argument simply because it is inconsistent with the parameters I set.
“Just to be clear, Pro is arguing morality is a humanconstruct AND a divine power is needed to make it work. It is an odd claim. It would be more coherent if the divine lawgiver were also the origin of moral law. Is my opponent suggesting a deity didn’t think of morality but recognized its usefulness andco-opted it? This is not consistent with an omniscient being. Not to mention, the opinions of a single being defining moral values is very much not objective.”
Morality is the human construct because it was invented by cognitive biases that were conceptualized by certain instincts brought on by empathy.
For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such. Otherwise, there is no significance.
“There might not be ‘morality’ engines to evaluate moral decisions like chess,but that doesn’t make morality subjective. This difference between my examples andmorality is inconsequential. There is no false equivalence. Objectivity does not require structure.”
- “In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).”
“l. Theism provides a consistent framework forobjective moral values.William LaneCraig is Christian, so I simply ask my opponent to provide the Bible’s consistentand unchanging position on slavery, rape, or genocide. For the record, thereisn’t one. The Old Testament codifiesslavery, allows rapists to marry their victim, and has god-commanded genocide.Christians mostly take a different view in modern times with slavery, rape, and genocide generally being considered immoral. This is notconsistency.”
Whether people in The Bible have upheld its standards or not should have no correspondence with whether the values it claims to uphold are objectively moral. Consequently, if there is no divine being to state that refusing to rescue a drowning person or leaving a puppy to die in a tragic house fire is morally wrong, then there is no incentive for people to treat it as such besides personal opinion.
“One view is only “superior” if both individuals buy into thesame standard. For instance, a Muslim and a Christian most likely aren’tgoing to agree on a superior moral view from a religious standpoint, but they mightagree from a humanistic context. Humanity understandsa common form of moral measurement thanks to our shared heritage as members ofa social species. Primitive populations would have shunned members that werea detriment to the group. Most all of ourancestors (having presumably been deemed more valuable than harmful) would have typically chosen cooperation in a group rather than murder and mayhem.To answer the question of which right and wrong are superior, we need a standard two parties can agree on. Is that going to be a ‘consistent’ theisticframework or something more fundamental like survival? My money is onthe latter.Finally, Pro asks for an example of objective morals and proofthey are objectively correct. I willremind Pro, the burden is on him in this debate. Can Pro meet the burden he attempts to lay on me? As for the second question, Pro is assuming his conclusion. The absence of an external authority figure doesn't disallow a "metaphorical internal or external compass". Humanism is an example of a moral theory with an external standard that is not a being of any kind.”
This isn’t Objective Morality, which deals in morality existing independently of human opinion, this is Social Morality. (In which humans ultimately come to a mutual agreement on shared ethics and beliefs.)
To assume that this is suddenly objective couldn’t be further from the truth. As people sometimes cooperate out of fear, even compromising their internal morals and conforming to what other people are enforcing on them, out of fear of scrutiny, torture, or execution. Or because sharing morals is more peaceful than fighting them out.
Now since Con refuses to provide any examples of objective morality and has not proven that they are objective, and hasn't answered how someone can arrive at their own conclusion of what constitutes objective morality without an intuition or empathy, I can only infer that Con is unable to give us this information or is uninterested.
To which I shall conclude the following, objective morality cannot exist without a divine authority.
Con
#6
Great argumentation, Sir.Lancelot! Let's get straight into it!
Humans want to believe that a dolphin is attacking a shark to save them because people are naturally narcissistic and want to assume the best intentions, but there is no proof this is true. This is what we call a Confirmation Bias.
In my narcissism (wink wink), I mentioned humans when pointing out dolphins save other animals from sharks. The point stands even if humans aren’t mentioned! Suffice to say, this isn’t confirmation bias or narcissism.
I’d like to weigh in on the bullet points provided:
- “Dolphins and sharks are natural predators.”
Humans area danger to most species. I fail to see the relevance of either of these facts to the debate.
- Dolphins impulsively attack sharks on sight, regardless of a person’s presence with no concern of the human’s well-being.”
it is not uncommon for dolphins and sharks to swim side by side. This means the ‘attacks on sight’ is hyperbolic at best. Dolphins and sharks are both carnivorous and often go to the same hunting grounds. Link·
- “Dolphins are known to provoke divers and swimmers, with people assuming they’re being saved from drowning without realizing they’re prey being toyed with.”
My opponent would have us question seemingly altruistic dolphin actions, but uncritically accept nefarious motives where it suits his argument. You can’t have it both ways there, sir.
- “Male Dolphins are also rapists.”
Unfortunately, male humans have been known to rape as well. I'm still interested to know what theistic framework my opponent is using to deem dolphin rape immoral. If one can’t be provided, then Sir.Lancelot has no legitimate objection to dolphin rape.
The Wolverine
We are given a video of a man buried in snow in order to showcase the incredible sense of smell and digging ability of a (tame)wolverine. The video isn’t meant to demonstrate any moral act. This video is completely irrelevant to this debate. Let’s not be distracted.
“Pro asks ‘if morality exists only inhuman minds what is the foundation for objective moral values?’ The answer is in the question: human minds. The fact that it is human minds, and not an individual mind, is what makes it objective: Everyone can follow along.”False.
It’s not clear what Pro thinks is false. Does he think his question didn’t have the answer built in? ...or does he disagree objectivity allows everyone to follow without the need for personal opinions? He goes on to give a confused argument involving incest, cannibalism, and objective revulsion (whatever that is). Long story short, humanity arbitrarily deciding morality and revulsion (given that it is an emotion) aren’t objective nor part of my argument. This is a strawman. I’m more than willing to set this ablaze with Pro.
Human minds cannot be the foundation {paraphrased]?P1.Morality varies. [paraphrased]
Yup. I reject the pre-marital sex strawman under this premise. I question what consistent, objective theistic framework my opponent is using to deem pre-marital sex immoral?
P2.Morality gets better over time. [paraphrased]
Yup, but this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine being so much as a natural organic progression of trial and error or insight through experience.
P3. “Con’s assertion makes no sense”. [paraphrased]
Wait ,what happened to the conclusion these premises were building up to?! …and, obviously, I disagree with Pro’s baseless rejection of my answer to his loaded question and my valid characterization of objectivity.
P3 “As the definitions in the description deal with right and wrong existing objectively, independently of a person’s opinion of what constitutes good and evil, then it is logically absurd to claim that humans determine objective morality just because it is a matter of numbers vs the individual.”
Two points to make here:
1. Using the definition of objective morality provided in the debate description (Right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion) my opposition has not provided an objective moral theory. Morality dependent on the opinion of a divine authority would fail to qualify as objective. Sir.Lancelot is advocating a form of subjective morality.
2. Pro misrepresents my argument. My position is not that a quantity of people makes something objective, but that a quality of objectivity is that it is less ambiguous - an interpreter isn't required. Opinions aren’t always clear and can’t always be followed by everyone, but an objective standard removes opinion from the equation and allows for many (or any) unbiased, honest individuals to arrive at more or less the same answer.
For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such. Otherwise, there is no significance.
This is an argument from assertion. For Pro to earn the favor of voters, he needs to do the impossible: explain how the opinions of a divine individual qualify as an objective standard while also being incongruous with the definitions he provided for Objective and objective morality.
“In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination).”
The above was in response to ‘objectivity does not require structure’. This does not negate or even disagree.
“l. Theism provides a consistent framework for objective moral values.
With relevance to the individual being quoted (William Lane Craig), I asked for a consistent and unchanging Biblical [Christian] position regarding slavery, rape o r genocide. No such standard was provided. For Pro to be victorious in this debate, he should be able to show his argument isn’t just hollow words. What is the consistent theistic framework Christians use to condemn slavery in the modern world while the Bible condones it?
[…] if there is no divine being to state that refusing to rescue a drowning person or leaving a puppy to die in a tragic house fire is morally wrong, then there is no incentive for people to treat it as such besides personal opinion.
I find this statement alarming. So far as I know there are no objectively verifiable words from a divine being, much less words which mandate rescuing drowning people. Does Pro believe there is no incentive to save a fellow human besides obedience? Obedience is not the same thing as morality.
“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way..” ― Christopher Hitchens Link
This isn’t Objective Morality, which deals in morality existing independently of human opinion, this is Social Morality. (In which humans ultimately come to a mutual agreement on shared ethics and beliefs.)
We’ve already agreed morality is a social construct. However, so are definitions like “objective”. This objection has no teeth.
Now since Con refuses to provide any examples of objective morality and has not proven that they are objective, and hasn't answered how someone can arrive at their own conclusion of what constitutes objective morality without an intuition or empathy, I can only infer that Con is unable to give us this information or is uninterested.
Such blatant dishonesty is not normally seen so prominently in debates on morality. These words were typed in response to a paragraph where Humanism was cited as an objective moral theory sans divine authority. Pro doesn’t have to agree with my example, but he shouldn’t pretend it was never provided.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Con makes subtle references to Christianity and demands certain details from the Bible because I quoted William Craig.
Let’s be clear, I’m not defending Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism. As such is irrelevant to the case I’m making. Nevertheless, my arguments do follow a clear structure.
- If God or some other divine being does not exist, then there is no foundation for objective morality.
- For morality to exist objectively, there first must exist a higher power that possesses knowledge and wisdom not accessible to life within the universe.
Rebuttals
“In my narcissism (wink wink), I mentioned humans when pointing out dolphins save other animals from sharks. The point stands even if humans aren’t mentioned! Suffice to say, this isn’t confirmation bias or narcissism.I’d like to weigh in on the bullet points provided:“Dolphins and sharks are natural predators.”Humans area danger to most species. I fail to see the relevance of either of these facts to the debate.”
If Con doesn’t see the relevance, why did he mention dolphins and sharks?
The point is to demonstrate that animals are primitive and barbaric, but the idea of morality is a human concept. Animals having empathy is not the same as knowing and understanding morality.
“My opponent would have us question seemingly altruistic dolphin actions, but uncritically accept nefarious motives where it suits his argument. You can’t have it both ways there, sir. “
Whales and dolphins are wild animals at the end of the day. Whales are known to snap and try to drown their trainers at SeaWorld. In the ocean, dolphins regularly do the same to divers or swimmers.
“Unfortunately, male humans have been known to rape as well. I'm still interested to know what theistic framework my opponent is using to deem dolphin rape immoral. If one can’t be provided, then Sir.Lancelot has no legitimate objection to dolphin rape.”
Most theistic scripture declare that animals are barbaric and that is why humans are seen as superior. As I have previously pointed out, morality is a human concept, and animals do not understand morality. Therefore, animals not being held to the same standard is consistent with my original points.
Because humans recognize that rape is abhorrent, rapists are locked away and cast out because they’re a threat to society. Majority of humans do not rape while rape is normalized in the dolphin species.
In Greek Mythology, Ares killed Poseidon’s son for raping his daughter.
“It’s not clear what Pro thinks is false. Does he think his question didn’t have the answer built in? ...or does he disagree objectivity allows everyone to follow without the need for personal opinions? He goes on to give a confused argument involving incest, cannibalism, and objective revulsion (whatever that is). Long story short, humanity arbitrarily deciding morality and revulsion (given that it is an emotion) aren’t objective nor part of my argument. This is a strawman. I’m more than willing to set this ablaze with Pro.”
This is a contradiction, as Con states the foundation for objective morality is human minds.
“1. Using the definition of objective morality provided in the debate description (Right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion) my opposition has not provided an objective moral theory. Morality dependent on the opinion of a divine authority would fail to qualify as objective. Sir.Lancelot is advocating a form of subjective morality.
2. Pro misrepresents my argument. My position is not that a quantity of people makes something objective, but that a quality of objectivity is that it is less ambiguous - an interpreter isn't required. Opinions aren’t always clear and can’t always be followed by everyone, but an objective standard removes opinion from the equation and allows for many (or any) unbiased, honest individuals to arrive at more or less the same answer.”
The perfect example we have for this are laws.
But laws are not objective morals and the law gets misinterpreted all the time. People understanding that rape is wrong has not stopped people from getting confused about a man sleeping with a woman who was too intoxicated to consent, using excuses that she said it was okay.
Even sexual harassment, while clearly wrong, is still so common in workplaces that employers need to establish and closely define boundaries for increased compliance.
In-fact, it would seem that more “objective standards” leads to more and more confusion. So I respectfully reject Con’s assertion that humans are capable of creating and defining objective morality.
“With relevance to the individual being quoted (William Lane Craig), I asked for a consistent and unchanging Biblical [Christian] position regarding slavery, rape o r genocide. No such standard was provided. For Pro to be victorious in this debate, he should be able to show his argument isn’t just hollow words. What is the consistent theistic framework Christians use to condemn slavery in the modern world while the Bible condones it?”
This argument isn’t as significant as my other ones, that even dropping it completely wouldn’t severely impact my case.
As I’m not defending one religion, Christianity only follows the rules and laws set forth by the New Testament. It was repeatedly declared in the Old Testament that the Messiah’s arrival would change everything. I could certainly be wrong, but scripture has not deviated from this point.
I’m not as biblically literate as William Craig.
“I find this statement alarming. So far as I know there are no objectively verifiable words from a divine being, much less words which mandate rescuing drowning people. Does Pro believe there is no incentive to save a fellow human besides obedience? Obedience is not the same thing as morality.”
Much of morality is obedience.
Do the majority of people refuse to steal product/merchandise from stores or gas stations because they know it’s wrong or is it the fear of punishment?
Exceptions exist, but most men and women in failing relationships or marriages that don’t cheat don’t do it out of devotion, respect, or faithfulness to their partners, but because of society’s stigmatization and scrutiny.
When a man is drafted to a war he doesn’t support/believe in, instead of staying with his family, he has an obligation to defend his country. This obligation is fulfilled even if it goes against his wants, desires, and personal beliefs in order to preserve his reputation and avoid being called a coward for life.
“We’ve already agreed morality is a social construct. However, so are definitions like “objective”. This objection has no teeth.”
The semantics of the term ‘objective’ and ‘morality’ have a place in public discourse. Assertions of objective morality without clear standards of objectivity or morality do not.
“Such blatant dishonesty is not normally seen so prominently in debates on morality. These words were typed in response to a paragraph where Humanism was cited as an objective moral theory sans divine authority. Pro doesn’t have to agree with my example, but he shouldn’t pretend it was never provided.”
I asked Con to provide examples of objective morality and demonstrate why it’s objective. Con responds by reminding me of the BOP which I upheld.
Con
#8
Thank you so much, Sir.Lancelot.
"Be prepared to offer defense"...or not.
Early on in this debate, my opponent embraced the words of, possibly, the modern world’s best and most well-known Christian debater: William Lane Craig. Now, Sir.Lancelot is attempting to distance himself from the religion of Dr. Craig and most well-known forms of theism. I asked pointed and reasonable questions of my opponent about Christianity, but no meaningful rebuttal has been provided thus far. Rather than address the specific criticisms, my opponent has gone to the ambiguous and vague. I can only assume Pro is avoiding these questions and this should be seen as retreat.
1. If God or some other divine being does not exist, then there is no foundation for objective morality.
This is an assertion, not an argument. If I weren’t averse to knowingly committing logical fallacies, I could simply state “Pro is wrong” and our fallacious assertions would cancel out.
2. For morality to exist objectively, there first must exist a higher power that possesses knowledge and wisdom not accessible to life within the universe.
This is yet another argument by assertion fallacy ...otherwise known as 'not an argument'.
The perfect example we have for this are laws. [...]In-fact, it would seem that more “objective standards” leads to more and more confusion. So I respectfully reject Con’s assertion that humans are capable of creating and defining objective morality.
Pro recycles his baseless contention humans are not capable of coming up with objective standards. This assertion was squashed by examples to the contrary in my round 1 opening argument: the rules of chess, the scientific method, and mathematics. I asked Pro why morality should be different from these human created examples of objectivity. His response did not follow (‘structure disallows subjectivity’). Repetition isn’t going to make Pro’s assertion more reasonable.
Much of morality is obedience.
Since my opponent is advocating divine authority is a requirement for morality (aka ~ obedience) he should be able to point us to a list of objective rules. Obedience is impossible without rules, or, at least, principles. Where can this be found? I imagine this is going to be very difficult for Pro while he refuses to commit to a specific divinity and/or theism.
Plus, there is a difference between obedience and morality. Obedience is about doing what one is told, morality is about doing the right thing. If mom tells son to murder dad, obedience is following directions while morality is not doing it. If soldiers are ordered to commit atrocities, following orders is obedience while not following orders is the moral thing to do. Morality and obedience are two separate things.
Exceptions exist, but most men and women in failing relationships or marriages that don’t cheat don’t do it out of devotion, respect, or faithfulness to their partners, but because of society’s stigmatization and scrutiny.
My opponent argues most people maintain fidelity for reasons that are NOT ‘divine authority’. I agree with the implication.
When a man is drafted to a war he doesn’t support/believe in, instead of staying with his family, he has an obligation to defend his country. This obligation is fulfilled even if it goes against his wants, desires, and personal beliefs in order to preserve his reputation and avoid being called a coward for life.
Again, my interlocutor appeals to something other than ‘divine authority’ as reason to do the right thing. Again, I agree.
I asked Con to provide examples of objective morality and demonstrate why it’s objective. Con responds by reminding me of the BOP which I upheld.
Sir.Lancelot’s claims of meeting his BOP notwithstanding, there are some unanswered questions. For instance, how does morality built on the opinions of a subject (divine or not) qualify as an ‘objective’ morality? If Pro is advocating for subjective morality under the label of objective, how could his burden have possibly been met? Additionally, there is a question of whether Pro is even advocating for morality at all or just obedience. If meeting a burden on objective morality does not require objectivity and/or morality, then Pro has nailed it.
Pro is trying to shift the burden to me because he is failing to uphold the only burden there is in this debate. I’ve provided glimpses into my views in the interest of discussion. My opponent is trying to twist my good will into a failure on my part, but don’t be fooled. This debate is about Pro’s view and whether it can be substantiated. The only question we need to ask ourselves when it is time to vote is, “Did Pro provide anything substantive to establish his position is correct?” I submit, “no”.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Voters will remember that in Round 1, Con says
The real question in this debate though is not whether morality requires Pro’s preferred deity, but whether a higher power is required for objectivity.
So when he says the following in an attempt to make me defend Christianity, he is backpedaling on his own argument.
Early on in this debate, my opponent embraced the words of, possibly, the modern world’s best and most well-known Christian debater: William Lane Craig. Now, Sir.Lancelot is attempting to distance himself from the religion of Dr. Craig and most well-known forms of theism.
Dr. Craig’s personal beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. He could believe in an almighty pasta monster and the validity of the quote would have the same impact.
The Rules of Chess do not exist objectively because rules do not exist objectively. While the instructions of chess are played for a specific purpose following a tradition, this doesn’t mean it’s objective.
Morality, much like rules, are man-made but completely arbitrary.
Conclusion
So in conclusion, objective morality cannot exist because God doesn’t exist.
I proved this by showing that morals are finite beliefs based on whims and are liable to change. They are not fact.
The only way these morals could have any intrinsic value is if an wise and all-knowing being with the omnipotence and the power declared it so. Otherwise, they are meaningless.
Rebuttals
This is an assertion, not an argument. If I weren’t averse to knowingly committing logical fallacies, I could simply state “Pro is wrong” and our fallacious assertions would cancel out.
Con tried to contest this constructive by retorting human minds as the foundation.
I pointed out this is illogical because human morals are inconsistent and differ from individual to individual, and there’s too many exceptions and loopholes. I also remarked this is inconsistent with the definition in the description.
Con could have appealed this rejection by suggesting a stronger definition than the one the debate offered, but he didn’t. So I refuted this argument.
Pro recycles his baseless contention humans are not capable of coming up with objective standards. This assertion was squashed by examples to the contrary in my round 1 opening argument: the rules of chess, the scientific method, and mathematics. I asked Pro why morality should be different from these human created examples of objectivity. His response did not follow (‘structure disallows subjectivity’). Repetition isn’t going to make Pro’s assertion more reasonable
It’s just that the comparisons don’t make sense.
Chess and math use empirical and strategy based methods to reach factual conclusions.
Morality is based on making value judgments and concerns feeling, as well as thought. The latter doesn’t follow the same criteria as the first.
Since my opponent is advocating divine authority is a requirement for morality (aka ~ obedience) he should be able to point us to a list of objective rules. Obedience is impossible without rules, or, at least, principles. Where can this be found? I imagine this is going to be very difficult for Pro while he refuses to commit to a specific divinity and/or theism.Plus, there is a difference between obedience and morality. Obedience is about doing what one is told, morality is about doing the right thing. If mom tells son to murder dad, obedience is following directions while morality is not doing it. If soldiers are ordered to commit atrocities, following orders is obedience while not following orders is the moral thing to do. Morality and obedience are two separate things.
Con is trying to appeal to semantics by suggesting empathy is morality.
But I believe my examples proved that traditional morality generally follows a system of fear-mongering and blind obedience.
Objective rules/morals don’t exist because God doesn’t exist.
Sir.Lancelot’s claims of meeting his BOP notwithstanding, there are some unanswered questions. For instance, how does morality built on the opinions of a subject (divine or not) qualify as an ‘objective’ morality? If Pro is advocating for subjective morality under the label of objective, how could his burden have possibly been met? Additionally, there is a question of whether Pro is even advocating for morality at all or just obedience. If meeting a burden on objective morality does not require objectivity and/or morality, then Pro has nailed it.Pro is trying to shift the burden to me because he is failing to uphold the only burden there is in this debate. I’ve provided glimpses into my views in the interest of discussion. My opponent is trying to twist my good will into a failure on my part, but don’t be fooled. This debate is about Pro’s view and whether it can be substantiated. The only question we need to ask ourselves when it is time to vote is, “Did Pro provide anything substantive to establish his position is correct?” I submit, “no”.
Since morality does not exist. The only way it could exist, factually, is if a being with limitless power spoke it into existence. That’s it. That’s my whole argument.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk, ladies and gentlemen. And a thanks to SkepticalOne for debating me again.
Vote Pro!
Con
#10
Thank you for an interesting debate, Sir.Lancelot!
Looking at the debate proposition and putting all distraction aside, we need only determine if Pro has established Objective morality is impossible in the absence of divine power. What substantiation has pro provided? Let us look:
o Without a divine creator, we have no framework for which to judge moral values.”
I showed a higher power is not required for objectivity by providing examples of philosophical objectivity sans divinity. (Mathematics, rules of chess, science, etc.) Pro did not argue against science and mathematics being objective. Instead, he argued they were different because they are structured. I pointed out the flawed reasoning: structure has no relation to objectivity. When he provided an irrelevant quote as a rebuttal to this point, he dropped his defense of the supposed structure/objectivity connection. My examples of objectivity in human creations without divine authority stand as does my point.
o Theism provides a consistent framework for objective morals
Since Pro was appealing to a well-known Christian debater, I assumed Christianity was his preferred form of theism. When I asked about the inconsistencies of Christianity, Pro ultimately retreated it from it as an “consistent theistic framework”. This would have been no problem if Pro had provided a specific example backing his assertions. He did not do this. Instead, my interlocutor backed away from specifics as though it were the hot stove he just got burned by.
Beyond Pro’s lack of a substantive positive case, there is also the inadequate defense against my challenges.
o Obedience and morality:
I showed how obedience can require different actions than morality and are two different things. There was a two pronged attacked here:
1. If morality is just obedience, then where are the objective rules? Pro made no attempt to provide an objective set of rules. Assuming morality were just obedience, then the absence of rules would mean his morality could not be objective.
2. If pro is advocating for something other than morality (like, say, obedience) then objective or not, he is obviously not building up a case for objective morality or meeting his burden.
o Divine morality:
Sir.Lancelot was asked how morality built on the opinions of a subject (divine or not) could qualify as objective. No response was provided. Quite simply, morality isn’t made objective by appealing to the ultimate subject. “Divine authority” does nothing to make morality objective. Once again, Pro has failed to uphold his burden.
As for my opponent’s final round, he completely abandons the proposition he is meant to support and gives away the debate. He is no longer arguing objective morality, divine authority, objectivity or even morality. Instead, he has come to endorse a position where God and morality are non-existent further undermining his position for this debate. This should be seen as an obvious concession. Vote Con!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Conduct. vallinging someone dishonest is a very serious claim requiring a proof of intent. Evidence therewith was not provided. Conduct accordingly.
Round 1: (Winner Con)
Pro says "Animals are barbaric and too primitive by nature to comprehend something as complex as morality." with no evidence. I find that statement very questionable, as many social animals have a construct of right and wrong, and discipline accordingly. The order in which who can eat, who can sleep where who can mate who..
Pro's opening argument is reductionist on a fallacy of only humans can have a sense of morality., as defined that being right and wrong. Because only humans have moral understanding, there must be a god. Not a good start.
Con's opening argument with respect to chess is interesting. It is not persuasive. However because the BOP is on Pro, Con wins round one.
Round 2: (Winner Con)
Pro says "It is based only on your own personal feelings validating what you believe to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’s expectations. " Pro is asserting that the concept of morality is based on individual personal feelings. Pro then asserts that, as they did in round 1, it must be because of a God. Pro asks Con a couple of questions, yet the BOP is on Pro. Pro has an impressive disassembly of the chess argument.
Con, rebuts Pro's round one, as anticipated, and hits all the valid points. In addition, Con does a great job showing that there are two issues here, morality being a human invention, caused by a deity. Con nails this round by stating "The absence of structuredoes (sic)not equal the absence of objectivity and vice versa". I am not sure I would have gone down the Christianity route, however, it is an interesting point. Con does well to push back on the BOP.
Round 3: (Winner Con, plus conduct)
Pro starts off with a confirmation bias claim, and then uses a story example, without proof. There are countless examples of animals helping humans. Intentional or not. Pro rightfully states that morality is everchanging, and not fixed. Pro seems to imply that if it was left to a human mind, it should be fixed. Pro states this with no proof, and observationally we know peoples minds change all the time with experience. Pro then says "For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such". The problem is that pro has to demonstrate WHY it requires divine power, and yas yet to do so. Pro makes this statement "morality without an intuition or empathy," Is Pro stating that empathy and intuition are actually divinely driven? The BOP is on Pro. Con doesn't have to answer any questions.
Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.
Round 4. (Winner Con)
Pro uses laws an example of the lack of unified morality, The definitions show that objective morality is individually based. Pro even argues against social morality claims in earlier rounds. So why use laws as an example of objective morality? I am genuinely confused. I am still looking for that objective morality is driven from the divine. Morality is from obedience, which is from.... where? There is nothing Pro has stated to show that obedience or morality is from the divine, other than repeating the statement. Pro is incorrect in asserting they have met their burden of proof. If they feel they have, they certainly have not made it clear.
Con hits all the right points here, and is correct in claiming Pro is tryiing to shift the burden.
Round 5: (Winner Con)
Pro's argument is reductionist, without any supporting examples. Repeating the same conclusion over and over again does not prove a point.
I accept Con's points except for the last point about a concession. It was only in the last round that I started to get a sense of what Pro was trying to argue. There were a lot of distractions here, and Con did a fine job trying to tie them up.
Pro came nowhere close to meeting the BOP they stated they had. Any vote for Pro misses this. While Pro had more sources, I do not think they had an impact.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I said I will vote, so here it goes. I am leaving everything as a tie.
My comment on this debate is:
A debate about objective morality shouldnt turn into a debate about dolphins attacking sharks, chess rules, math, laws, obedience...
I think we can all agree that none of those are examples of objective morality as defined in the description.
Thank you!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Not Removed*
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
I have decided to leave the vote up in spite of persistent errors in the voter's choice to award conduct, hence the above asterisk. This is because the voting period is ending shortly and the voter in question has not been available to make the appropriate changes. The voter sufficiently explains arguments, providing detailed analyses, and is the only one who has awarded differential points on this debate. If the awarding of the conduct point was sufficient to change the outcome, this vote would be subject to removal.
That being said, the conduct point is still insufficiently explained for 3 reasons:
1) The voter provides independent reasons in his RFD for awarding conduct to both Con ("Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.") and Pro (vallinging [sic] someone dishonest is a very serious claim requiring a proof of intent. Evidence therewith was not provided. Conduct accordingly."), but decides to award conduct to Con regardless.
2) The reason for awarding conduct to Con is insufficient. The voter attributes it to instances of dishonesty on Con's part, but is not specific as to the instances of dishonesty. Additionally, dishonesty is not nor has it ever been sufficient reason to award conduct.
3) The reason for awarding conduct to Pro is insufficient. The voter appears to see Con's claims that Pro was dishonest as a personal attack, but what he points to addresses the arguments given in the debate rather than attacking the opponent directly. Even if he did, claiming misbehavior on the part of your opponent is not sufficient for awarding conduct.
**************************************************
He has been slow to get back to me and what I've seen so far has been... defensive without really engaging with the problems.
Long story short, there are multiple problems with how he's awarding conduct, but since he does provide sufficient analysis of arguments, since he's the only one who has a vote that awards points differentially on this debate, and since awarding conduct doesn't meaningfully alter the outcome of this debate, I'm going to leave it up with an asterisk. If he doesn't respond to me before time is up on this debate, I'll post the full reasoning for why it would have been removed here in the comments, but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He clearly read the debate, but that doesn't justify the basis he used for awarding conduct.
Could I get a review of Slainte’s vote?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BennyEmerald// Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision:
Pro's argument is basically: objective is absolute, and any human morality would have to be subjective as human experiences are subjective and not utterly objective like a divine being's is. Con's argument is basically why can't morality be an objective invention of humanity much like chess is, which doesn't work as morality is limited to the subjective human experience, something pro points out as a false equivalence.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Most of this RFD amounts to restating each side's basic arguments rather than stating anything regarding why the voter found certain points persuasive. It should be clarified, for example, why the voter finds the false equivalence response effective instead of simply stating that it was effective.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Slainte // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con (Arguments and Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See comment #14
>Reason for Mod Action:
The conduct point is insufficiently explained. The voter explains it this way:
"I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly."
It's unclear what issue of honesty is sufficient to award conduct in this instance. I haven't read the whole debate, but while there is some discussion on Con's part of Pro's dishonesty, the voter has to be clear how and why this warrants awarding conduct. This may also be connected with the voter's statements about hypocrisy, but it is similarly unclear how that satisfies as a conduct violation. See the voting policy on awarding conduct:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#conduct
**************************************************
The following text was posted as a vote by Slainte on this debate:
Round 1: (Winner Con)
Pro says "Animals are barbaric and too primitive by nature to comprehend something as complex as morality." with no evidence. I find that statement very questionable, as many social animals have a construct of right and wrong, and discipline accordingly. The order in which who can eat, who can sleep where who can mate who..
Pro's opening argument is reductionist on a fallacy of only humans can have a sense of morality., as defined that being right and wrong. Because only humans have moral understanding, there must be a god. Not a good start.
Con's opening argument with respect to chess is interesting. It is not persuasive. However because the BOP is on Pro, Con wins round one.
Round 2: (Winner Con)
Pro says "It is based only on your own personal feelings validating what you believe to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’s expectations. " Pro is asserting that the concept of morality is based on individual personal feelings. Pro then asserts that, as they did in round 1, it must be because of a God. Pro asks Con a couple of questions, yet the BOP is on Pro. Pro has an impressive disassembly of the chess argument.
Con, rebuts Pro's round one, as anticipated, and hits all the valid points. In addition, Con does a great job showing that there are two issues here, morality being a human invention, caused by a deity. Con nails this round by stating "The absence of structuredoes (sic)not equal the absence of objectivity and vice versa". I am not sure I would have gone down the Christianity route, however, it is an interesting point. Con does well to push back on the BOP.
Round 3: (Winner Con, plus conduct)
Pro starts off with a confirmation bias claim, and then uses a story example, without proof. There are countless examples of animals helping humans. Intentional or not. Pro rightfully states that morality is everchanging, and not fixed. Pro seems to imply that if it was left to a human mind, it should be fixed. Pro states this with no proof, and observationally we know peoples minds change all the time with experience. Pro then says "For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such". The problem is that pro has to demonstrate WHY it requires divine power, and yas yet to do so. Pro makes this statement "morality without an intuition or empathy," Is Pro stating that empathy and intuition are actually divinely driven? The BOP is on Pro. Con doesn't have to answer any questions.
Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.
Round 4. (Winner Con)
Pro uses laws an example of the lack of unified morality, The definitions show that objective morality is individually based. Pro even argues against social morality claims in earlier rounds. So why use laws as an example of objective morality? I am genuinely confused. I am still looking for that objective morality is driven from the divine. Morality is from obedience, which is from.... where? There is nothing Pro has stated to show that obedience or morality is from the divine, other than repeating the statement. Pro is incorrect in asserting they have met their burden of proof. If they feel they have, they certainly have not made it clear.
Con hits all the right points here, and is correct in claiming Pro is tryiing to shift the burden.
Round 5: (Winner Con)
Pro's argument is reductionist, without any supporting examples. Repeating the same conclusion over and over again does not prove a point.
I accept Con's points except for the last point about a concession. It was only in the last round that I started to get a sense of what Pro was trying to argue. There were a lot of distractions here, and Con did a fine job trying to tie them up.
Pro came nowhere close to meeting the BOP they stated they had. Any vote for Pro misses this. While Pro had more sources, I do not think they had an impact.
Thank you for the constructive criticism! I'll do my best to integrate it into future debates.
You're welcome :)
Thanks for the vote!
Bump
Thank you, sir!
Yes, I will vote after its done.
Would you like to vote on this when it’s over?
2nd round spacing is annoying. It was fine in Word before transfer to site (and still is). Now words are crammed together. Ugh.
Looks like fun -Good luck!
Fixed
I do not accept universal and objective morality are synonymous. I do not accept there is such a thing as universal morality. Neither view would withstand debate, imo.
Also, Pro should have burden, especially since I've explicitly stated "I'm not convinced" which isn't a position.
The majority of the BOP should be on pro here. Not the person arguing the negative.
Response time is a week.