Instigator / Pro
1
1511
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#995

Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

My position is that an intrinsic moral code that outlines and defines good as an objective standard, rather than a utilitarian standard or Kantian Maxim, cannot exist without a supreme and objective outside source defining an action or mode of action as good. Your position (con) would argue against that hypothesis, and that a code of objective values CAN exist without God, OR, that a subjective system of ethical values could be as strong of a system. Additionally, the discussion of whether or not the adoption of a subjective system of ethical values, to serve a utilitarian or other function, would be interesting to make reference to, and I am completely open to switching my position if I am convinced by the argument. Additionally, this is not a religious argument, but a purely philosophical one, and should not include the invocation of, say, Biblical passages for the purpose of proving the "brutality" of the Judeo-Christian moral code.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for voting, I appreciate The time it must have taken.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

Only an hour or so left

-->
@TheAtheist

Yes that is an example of pragmatism.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

If by "pragmatism" you mean treat others how you yourself would like to be treated, then yes.

-->
@TheAtheist

If you'd like to argue about the merits of religion itself we can do that another time. The argument at hand is whether or not an ethical system can hold objective reasoning for the nature of actions within its system, if that system is built upon pragmatism, and not given by God.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

So why are Christians following an ethical system given by God, but other religions are just confused? Based on what do you make that claim?

-->
@TheAtheist

No according to my logic Christians (and all who subscribe to judeochristian ethics) were given an ethical system by God. They by nature did not choose their morality, it is just an inherent law of the universe, which is the crux of my argument.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

So do Christians just choose their morals too, according to your logic? And if no, why not?

-->
@TheAtheist

That does not mean morality is subjective, that means different cultures choose to behave in different ways.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

So that means their morals are subjective? If yes, why aren’t all morals subjective?

-->
@TheAtheist

Because not all cultures have the Bible.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

If Morality is objective, then how come different cultures have different moral standards?

-->
@Ramshutu

how noble of you! preying on someone taking a bullshit stance that is going to be irrefutably countered by pure logic! WOW!

I'm sure I can find enough things to call poor and disregard throughout.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

That’s fine, lol: the definition is clear, and I cannot stand semantic tactics! I will be arguing in good faith, on the topic: just that there is a very different path that could be taken here.

The framing of the resolution doesn’t claim that we have an intrinsic moral code that outlines and defines good as an objective moral standard: but such a standard is impossible without God - and such a system is stronger than a subjective model.

IE: simply proving that our morality is entirely subjective or not, is not sufficient to win. I have to show that an objective standard with God is as good as one without, or a subjective system is just as good.

Normally, morality debates fixate on what is, rather than the hypothetical side (so I was just checking :)

-->
@Ramshutu

In a way it is both. My point is that I believe that our societal notion of objective/true good and evil, in a vacuum, comes from our notion of God the infallible passing down morality to us, as we a humans can have no bearing on the objective moral nature of our actions in the grander scheme of the universe. So in short, I am already presupposing that our moral system is objective, but that is because as a societal foundation we have biblical morality (from God) deeply rooted in us, even if individuals of us may be atheists. The question itself is how an objective moral standard could exist without God, and if you like, what such a system might look like.

Also, just so there's no confusion, although our positions still stand, I changed my side to Pro and your side to Con, just so that there won't be any more possible gripes someone might take with how I set up the positions.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

Just so I don’t misunderstand: This resolution does not appear to be whether morality or our moral system is objective or not - but a hypothetical question of whether it is possible to have an infallible moral system (either objective or not) without God, right?

-->
@Ramshutu

No worries take your time. Just happy to be debating such an interesting topic.

-->
@Ad_Infinitum

Thanks for the challenge, hopefully I won’t need each set of 3 days - but it means I don’t have to stress about time!