CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yeah different questions. I didn't want to limit the debate to just one. If someone comes up with another option that would be cool to but it would take a lot of twisting the statement to get one.
Those who are not Christians cannot be moral.
Is this in line to the pope saying that non believers can commit moral acts? As his wording stands the act would be moral but the person would not.
edit...
I am looking for his exact wording to make sure I got it right, he may have clarified his statement
Edit.
Scratch what I said about the pope, he said that going against ones conscious is a sin and non believers can make up their minds about good and evil.
You are still vague on your definition of what morality is. I think I have a basic idea of where you stand though on who can do moral acts though. Italics are mine, bold is yours.
Non-believers cannot do moral acts. Thats the issue.
This either means non believers are incapable of doing moral acts, or acts are only moral if a believer does them (and they satisfy the other requirements for being moral that are still vague ... except for being in line with your deity and what they say is moral).
An earlier exchange gives me pause though to be exactly sure.
Is a moral act moral no matter who does it?
Moral acts are moral no matter who does it.
But what if either does an immoral act? are they immoral?
Good trees only bear good fruit, and bad trees only bear bad fruit.
Because of this exchange here I think you mean non believers are incapable of doing moral acts. Not acts are only moral if a believer does them.
Is this the correct interpretation of your stance?
I would define morality as a social and personal code of conduct that that arises from the want to help others with the results aimed at the betterment of all.
Would you agree that your religion would see selfless acts that benefit others as moral?
Non believers can do moral acts, in fact they do all the time. They help the homeless, raise their children to be polite, do social work, and many do this for the good that comes out of helping others just as some believers do as well. Moreover they do these moral acts without threat of eternal hell or being coerced by eternal bliss. This shows that people can do moral actions without fear of punishment for being bad or being rewarded but for the betterment of others and society in turn.
There are non religious philosophies that base their actions on the results of those actions doing good for others. Kantian philosophy has the moral imperative of an action being moral as long as everyone can do it and the outcome is the good for all. Utilitarianism also bases actions on the positive outcome for the most people, clearly not a selfish philosophy.
If someone were to claim that non believers only do things to look good or for selfish reasons that would seem quite the misrepresentation of a whole group. That claim would have just as much weight behind it as someone who says that believers only do good out of fear or because or the reward of heaven.
If that is what a religion teaches its followers it would seem that line of reasoning is not teaching others to be good, but that it is better to be a believer than a non believer. It would be sensible to say that believers and non believers run the gambit of selfless to selfish.
Would you agree that your religion would see selfless acts that benefit others as moral?
Yes, but non-Christians do not do this, and many might say that no one does this.
Non believers can do moral acts, in fact they do all the time. They help the homeless, raise their children to be polite, do social work, and many do this for the good that comes out of helping others just as some believers do as well. Moreover they do these moral acts without threat of eternal hell or being coerced by eternal bliss. This shows that people can do moral actions without fear of punishment for being bad or being rewarded but for the betterment of others and society in turn.
Acts are not moral unless the heart is in the right place.
There are non religious philosophies that base their actions on the results of those actions doing good for others. Kantian philosophy has the moral imperative of an action being moral as long as everyone can do it and the outcome is the good for all.
You might want to do some more research on the morals of religions and Kantian ethics.
You might want to do some more research on the morals of religions and Kantian ethics.
Is my example not a moral imperative from Kantian philosophy? You seem to have no qualms with the utilitarian view though. That is also sufficient evidence that such morality exists outside of religion. I do not want to get stuck in a red herring or dead end here.
Yes, but non-Christians do not do this, and many might say that no one does this.
Sure it has been argued that no one does that. But you are not arguing that, you are arguing christians do the behavior of selfless acts but non believers are incapable. A claim that has no weight behind it and is merely an assertion that can only be backed with other assertions. You can only show this through tautology saying "this is how it is" but not logically without ignoring evidence or making huge sweeping assumptions on a group.
Again if this is what your religion teaches, that others are incapable of selfless acts, then it isn't teaching you to be kind to others it is teaching you it is better to believe than not and that you are better than others. That doesn't seem too moral.
Is my example not a moral imperative from Kantian philosophy? You seem to have no qualms with the utilitarian view though. That is also sufficient evidence that such morality exists outside of religion. I do not want to get stuck in a red herring or dead end here.
Kant's ethics is called deontology, which means duty. The ends have no bearing on morality for Kant.
I have huge issues with consequentialism.... two wrongs do not make a right. The end does not make up the morality. The act doesn't make up the morality. The intentions and the heart is what matters.
But you are not arguing that, you are arguing christians do the behavior of selfless acts but non believers are incapable. A claim that has no weight behind it and is merely an assertion that can only be backed with other assertions.
Does it look like I'm arguing? I'm asserting. You can take the truth or leave it.
Again if this is what your religion teaches, that others are incapable of selfless acts, then it isn't teaching you to be kind to others it is teaching you it is better to believe than not and that you are better than others. That doesn't seem too moral.
Christianity teaches that no one is good, and that Christ must be our righteousness for us.
Does it look like I'm arguing? I'm asserting. You can take the truth or leave it.
As this site is for debating I would think arguing would be the way to go. I see no truth in the statement either, but you already know where I stand. If this is your view then I really don't see much else here. That view is akin to a form of bigotry, like saying religious people are mentally ill or they are all bigots.
Kant's ethics is called deontology, which means duty. The ends have no bearing on morality for Kant.
I deviate from strict Kantian Philosophy as his idea contains to never to treat a person or yourself as a means but as an end. Not to break the moral imperative is the goal and to make an imperative that allows it to never be broken. So 90% agree with you. It is not completely Kant though you are right.
I was using the idea of a rule that everyone could follow that produces good would be considered moral. Unless you are strictly Kantian this could allow for self sacrifice.
The act doesn't make up the morality. The intentions and the heart is what matters.
Agreed here mostly again. Intention is a major factor in determining what act to take. I would say though you cannot separate ends and means. While I too give weight to the intent of actions I see the ends and means as a whole.
Christianity teaches that no one is good, and that Christ must be our righteousness for us.
Pretty much what I said, it teaches to believe as the most important part. I would say this has an interesting mirror to Kantian Philosophy where duty is to god instead of the imperative. If it weren't why wouldn't just being moral be enough to get into heaven as you keep saying intent matters? To hold that your god is needed you need to to exclude all non believers from the ability to form this intent otherwise the deity does not matter.
I am more of a pragmatist, moral pragmatist even. I recognize that morality has changed over the centuries as we learned new things. I would say no one is truly all one philosophy either, but rather a collection of a few that are closely aligned.
Really though if you are not keen on the idea of non believers having the ability to be moral I think we ran our course here as that was the question in the debate.
1) Objective morality doesn't exist, at all, anyway.
If morality is not objective, then why call it morality? Its simply preference; you can only say that it is you preference for people to do this or that, instead of this or that. It would be equivalent to liking blue over red.
2) Bollocks.
If there is no such thing as morality, then no one can do it. Morality is a necessary condition for being moral. in other words, if there is no morality, then no one can be moral.
Agreed though it is not arbitrary as lolzerz says. Well much of it is not as morality can often be a product of reason. I am not convinced a deity as a moral guide is not full of arbitrary assumptions.
that is the point, it is accepted form of liking blue over red. You live in secular society where legal system was intentionally separated from Christianity...
There cannot be any sort of objective morality without God.
Screw you man, I'm very moral, I will never hurt a fly nor treat another human less then human just because that human is different can you say the same?
Those who are not Christians cannot be moral.
You people are the ones that lack morals, I will never hate on a gay person, nore treat another like shit because they are different, History has proven that your kind treated people like shit, from slavery, bigotry and sexism, so if being Christian means treating others like shit because they are not Christian then you can shove that cross up you ass.
Screw you man, I'm very moral, I will never hurt a fly nor treat another human less then human just because that human is different can you say the same?
This just rings of pride. Doing something out of selfish pride is not a moral act, even though it might be perceived by others as being good. Did Jesus not rebuke the Pharisees quite a bit? Did they not think themselves to be moral? Humble yourself.
You people are the ones that lack morals, I will never hate on a gay person, nore treat another like shit because they are different, History has proven that your kind treated people like shit, from slavery, bigotry and sexism, so if being Christian means treating others like shit because they are not Christian then you can shove that cross up you ass.
Do I hate on gay people? I have gay friends.... Do I treat other people differently? Sure, many people have used Christianity as a platform for evil; but this does not mean that within their inner being they actually were Christians. Yet again, your comment rings with pride. Humble yourself. I do wrong things all the time; I must rest upon the salvation of Christ.
Why do you think the Pharisees were angry when Jesus called them out? Its because the truth revealed their sin, and they wanted to hide it. They wanted everyone to know them as righteous and righteousness. You get so mad at me when I call you out about morality, because you know that whatever charade you were holding up is now coming undone.
I believe being "moral" is knowing the difference between right and and wrong and treating people with respect, you can do this without having a belief in God, it's just called being a decent human being
Yes what is moral is not decided by any divine being it is decided by human beings. We may quarrel over certain things as being moral or not but most of us can agree that the following are immoral:
No because God gave us the morals. If one doesn't believe in God who defines what's right and wrong? You do and that's the problem. We don't define what's right and wrong but God does.
We cannot know why God did this because we cannot understand Him because He is at a whole different level than we are. It's impossible to know why God said this is good or bad. Only He knows why He did that.
Then that is to follow a deities commandments blindly. I cannot get on board with that, without self reflection there is no way to tell if what we are doing is negative or not. You are just taking someones word for it that it is, and why? Because they said they were a good authority on it. Because they said do it or else you will regret it or do it and they will reward you.
I feel a better way is to determine what is moral based on criteria such as selfless acts that result in the betterment for all. We can see or predict if our actions will result in the betterment of humanity and not just ourselves.
We cannot know why God did this because we cannot understand Him because He is at a whole different level than we are. It's impossible to know why God said this is good or bad. Only He knows why He did that.
The ego and materialism, man. The Bible screams that out to people, and nobody catches on. If you want to enter the Kingdom of God, you need to give up materialism and lose the ego.
Well to me what God is may be different then your God, which God is it that you speak of? In my believes God is the sun and moon...so really you can't live at all without God cause we need both to inhabit this planet.
Nopes...cuz Gods be da one who created our brainsseze and how dey work which means he is da raisin y we can even choose our morals. He is da raisin y we can even choose at all. (nods head vigorously)
