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.

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:

This topic ends up being pretty one sided, as pro needs to either prove an absolute, or K their own topic by claiming morals don’t exist at all. What pro is really arguing is a limited divine command theory, which is easy challenged by any other ethical hypothesis. … That said, the description looks well written, so this might be a real battle.

Gist:
Pro started a discussion, not even really a case until con organized (and repeatedly reorganized) it; then dropped out.

1. Subjectivity
This was where I saw pro work the hardest, but when he tried to define local objective standards as truly objective (God makes something, decides what is good and bad by flipping a coin, inside the bubble it’s objective), con was able to show that this was inherently subjective from the perspective of said arbiter. Thus, pro’s big goal which he was to base his remaining case around was prevented, leaving the rest of his argument at an insurmountable handicap.

2. Morals change with the times
It was shown to be better than what an outside arbiter would predict we need, and better for us being able to understand it.

---

Arguments: Con
See above review of key points. With the assessments uncontested for the final two rounds, it would be pretty much impossible for pro to win.

Sources: Con
Pro tried to use three, but did not build them into his case (they were kind of tacked on on the end, rather than linked or referenced). Con used a ton.
One source I found interesting was the magnets one, to which I think a whole debate could be centered around. If a magnetic field can make us switch to short term consequentialism, then is that maybe an objective standard for morality? Anyway, it made me think.

Conduct: Con
Forfeiture.