Philosophy debates
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.
This debate is on the topic: "Developed nations have a moral obligation to admit people fleeing oppression." I will take the Con position. See the full description for more details.
Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
Another debate I'm starting. Based on the recent 'facts don't care about your feelings' argument being chucked around here and there.
I will argue that migration is a human right. My opponent should argue that migration is not a human right. The full resolution to be debated is given in the full description.
Pro (me): Per se the title; Con: Refuting the fact that there was a prior, fundamental action, direction, and purpose in the creation of human beings
This is a continuation of this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/660
My position (con) 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.
Universal Morals: Morals that are generally accepted within all society's. Morals: A decision to tell between right from wrong.
