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.
It counts what one views as immoral. If someone is a religious fanatic and scolds people who are having sex before marriage or scolds Gay people, then their views on immorality would be based on their naive thinking and should be scoffed.
Now, if someone commits an immoral act that is against the law, then the immoral act cannot be justified.
I'm going to guess that you're relatively young, and hold an appreciation for sexual immorality, so essentially every thing that feels good, and is civillly legal is moral. That is the State, and not God/or some natural process common to all determines morality. If this is your position, and then it would follow that some things which are immoral may be moral later, if only the State changes the law to accomodate an element of immorality. This could go on and on to the comfort level of the majority of persons in any given community of persons. That morality changes with the subjects of the propositions. If this were true, than morality would always be the province of the State, and the community. If State A decides on cannibalism, but doesn't mess with State B one way or another, than State A is being moral in their cannibalism, since they don't find it immoral, and no one in State B is being attacked or hurt.
Things are immoral, because they ARE. Voters, states and courts can have no bearing on what is and isn't wrong. They can only make civil law, which may or may not be morally sound. This is one of the purposes of moral conscience.
So, you must be under the belief that once God says something is immoral there is no possible way for Him to send His only child down to Earth and be sacrificed so that some moral rules can change.
I'm going to guess that you're relatively young, and hold an appreciation for sexual immorality
Chances are, they do not "appreciate" things that they believe are immoral, so this statement is a bit silly.
If this is your position, and then it would follow that some things which are immoral may be moral later
Everyone's sense of morality chances, even if just in incredible small ways, throughout their life. Morality is subjective.
If this were true, than morality would always be the province of the State, and the community. If State A decides on cannibalism, but doesn't mess with State B one way or another, than State A is being moral in their cannibalism, since they don't find it immoral, and no one in State B is being attacked or hurt.
You are confusing legal processes with morality. A state legalizing something does not make it moral, and a state banning something does not make it immoral. If one views the harm principle to be a defining standard of ethics, as I do, then cannibalism will (almost) always be immoral to them, regardless of legal state. Just because one does not believe in divinely inspired morality does not mean their morality is determined by the legal process.
Things are immoral, because they ARE.
You think things are immoral because you think they are. It is your accumulation of life experiences and beliefs that lead to your sense of morality. I am sure there are some things you think are moral that I find immoral, and vice versa, but neither of us would be objectively right.
"I am sure there are some things you think are moral that I find immoral,"
I don't think this would be possible. Do you have an example? I already know that the transverse is true, based on your posts. But I don't know where you would get that there are things I think are moral that you would think are immoral, since I am saying that morality is sufficient unto itself, and unchanegable. Only ones personal opinions and consequences change. Not the immoral thing itself.
What would be a good example of a non-relativist such as myself thinking is moral, that a relativist would possibly find immoral. I'm not asking for examples the other way around. I'm sure there are plenty of those.
I don't think this would be possible. Do you have an example? I already know that the transverse is true, based on your posts. But I don't know where you would get that there are things I think are moral that you would think are immoral, since I am saying that morality is sufficient unto itself, and unchanegable. Only ones personal opinions and consequences change. Not the immoral thing itself.
I believe it is rather obvious from my posts that I disagree on the nature of morality, and hold that your concepts of morality are your subjective beliefs, not your recognition of any possible objective morality. As for examples of things that you would find moral that I wouldn't, it would be difficult to come up with one without knowing the entirety of your sense of morality, which I don't think any individual actually knows at any given time.
What would be a good example of a non-relativist such as myself thinking is moral, that a relativist would possibly find immoral.
First, a bit of a clarification: There are almost no moral relativists in the world, short of those with conditions such as Sociopathy. The term is misused, and often should be replaced with Moral Non-Cognativism, which is what I adhere to.
As for an example, I direct you to my previous answer on this comment: While I am sure that such an example exists, giving you the specifics would be difficult without having access to your entire sense of morality. If you wanted to, we could go down the list of contemporary political issues.
Though, now that I think of it, your inclusion of Sanger next to Pol Pot and Stalin makes me think that you would find outlawing abortion to be a moral thing to do, while I would find it immoral (though that isn't to say I find abortion itself moral).
"Do you think it is moral to convince gay people that they are bad?"
First, you're creating a straw man, since I have no problem with persons who experience same sex attraction. There is no immorality in our attractions. It is actions on things which we know in our hearts to be immoral, or which have been defined as immoral which form immorality. This doesn't apply to homosexuals any more than it applies to heterosexuals who commit sexual acts prior to marriage, or during marriage with someone they are not married to as well. In fact, this is much more common than homosexual sex. It is not an external act convincing anyone that something they're doing is immoral. It is themselves, knowing that they are doing something immoral when they act out. That's called guilt, and at's a perfectly normal and natural response within us to that which is immoral. We are obsessed as a culture with trying to remove guilt from things rather than trying to avoid that which elicits a guilt response, which is a protective measure inside ourselves to assist us in remaining moral in our action.
"Do you think it is moral to convince people to be Christian?" I'm not sure how this connects with anything I've been talking about, but since you've asked, God is love. Jesus is God. Therefore Jesus is love. To attempt to convince someone to live in love would be within the limits of morality, yes.
"Do you think it is moral to attack people for not following your morality?"
What do you mean by attack? I've never attacked anyone in my life. If one attacks someone, either physically, or in some cruel mental way, this is immoral in and of itself. If you mean attacking (figuratively, I assume), immoral acts, it is actually a duty of citizenship. We should always be fighting, rather than acquiescing to the foisting of immorality into our culture, presented as a good. It just makes good sense. If we lay back and just let everything happen to us, then we end up in the kind of confusing mess we find ourselves in now.
First, you're creating a straw man, since I have no problem with persons who experience same sex attraction. There is no immorality in our attractions. It is actions on things which we know in our hearts to be immoral, or which have been defined as immoral which form immorality. This doesn't apply to homosexuals any more than it applies to heterosexuals who commit sexual acts prior to marriage, or during marriage with someone they are not married to as well. In fact, this is much more common than homosexual sex. It is not an external act convincing anyone that something they're doing is immoral. It is themselves, knowing that they are doing something immoral when they act out. That's called guilt, and at's a perfectly normal and natural response within us to that which is immoral. We are obsessed as a culture with trying to remove guilt from things rather than trying to avoid that which elicits a guilt response, which is a protective measure inside ourselves to assist us in remaining moral in our action.
This is predicted upon the idea that there are inherent, objective morals which are held by all. It seems rather arrogant, to me, to assume that you know people find their actions worthy of guilt, and then claiming that their other actions revolve around said assumed guilt.
I think it is immoral to convince people to believe in Christianity and you think that is moral. I have found something that you find moral that I find immoral and you said there wouldn't be one.
And the first one wasn't a strawman, it was a question.
The moral conscience is an evolved attribute of our species. Most members of our species possess a genetic disposition towards morality, but how that morality manifests is heavily influenced by the socialization a person undergoes by the collective through social institutions such as the family, government, and religion.
There is no objective evidence that a single, absolute morality exists (religious or otherwise). Morality as it has actually been observed in reality has never been fixed or absolute, but is instead relative and constantly evolving.
Regardless of its form, belief in objective moral absolutes is categorically absurd. Your naive belief in the moral legitimacy of the law is just as laughable as that of your religiously naive counterparts.
People choose their own morality. They can not justify acts that they themselves believe are immoral, but can justify acts others think are as immoral by simply saying the other person is wrong about what is immoral.
When you say "choose their own morality", are you implying it is actually a conscious choice? Do you believe one can decide that they find something moral, then later decide they don't, entirely based on conscious will?
Yes. I also consider what people do as more important than what they say is moral. I think it makes sense for people to consider new information and update their morality.
I agree that as people consider new information their morality is often updated, I am simply a little confused about the idea that one consciously decides to update their morality.
I can't think of any instance where I "chose" to change my morality, it simply changed as new information came to light and rendered previous conclusions incorrect.
I don't see it that way. When presented with the new information, I did not come to the decision that I would use it, I just did. When I saw the new information, my opinion changed. There was no conscious choice, there was no intent, it just happened. I definitely agree that many people will ignore new information in order to hold onto preconceptions, but I am uncertain if even that is necessarily a conscious choice.
Reactions are rarely a conscious choice. A bad example, but when you look at someone, do you choose to find them attractive? Or is your reaction to find them attractive?
An action can only be categorically immoral if morality is an objectively absolute fact, which it is not. The inherently subjective nature of morality means that what is immoral to one person or group of people can be morally (or amorally) justified by another.
I happen to think that everything is pointless, but that was not in fact the argument I was making there. I would suggest rereading and applying some critical comprehension skills, if you can.
What separates moral persons from Nazi's, Pol Pot, Stalinists, Tojo, Margaret Sanger, etc., is that moral persons understand that evil can not be a means to an end. Even an "imagined" good end. Immorality can not be made right by circumstance.
I'd like to start by saying I like how you slipped Margaret Sanger in with actual genocidal despots. Real sneaky.
Additionally, many individuals, such as Hitler, believed that what they were doing was morally right and justified. Hitler believed that he was actually ridding the world of evil people, and believed that the means were not particularly evil, as he was only killing "vermin". Now obviously to the rest of us that seems absurd, but that is the nature of good and evil, right and wrong. Short of mental "insanity" (looking at you, Pol Pot) or complete narcissistic, cynical ambition (cough Stalin cough), both sides of a situation will think they are the good guys.
This supports my point. These were all people who believed they were getting to a "good" end, and used that to justify evil means. That is the heart of my answer to the original debate.
P.S. There was no sneakiness implied or intended by adding Margaret Sanger. I stand by that, and I stand by it as obvious.
This supports my point. These were all people who believed they were getting to a "good" end, and used that to justify evil means.
Except Hitler believed both the end and the means were "good", which was my point. Pol Pot was absolutely insane and I seriously doubt he gave any moral consideration to anything he did, and Stalin was a megalomaniac who was probably in the same boat in terms of moral considerations.
Can you objectively prove that your own morality and conception of "evil" are valid? Assuming you could do that, would you then be able to prove that theirs were not? The sole premise of your argument is that your views are correct upon your assertion of them, an argument that those others have advanced as well.
Your statements assume the existence of a moral absolute. The reality is that no such absolute exists; morality is entirely a matter of assertion which cannot be proven. Justification is not a matter of proof but of proclamation, likely with some accompanying rationale but not necessarily.
OK let me try this. (I didn't understand what moral absolute means)
My argument doesn't assume a moral absolute, its just that if someone shows someone else that an act is moral(justified), then the act was never immoral.
Its as if the debate question is asking, "Can you prove that a cat is a dog?".
The problem is that you cannot prove a non-absolute that lacks objective basis. You can only assert it. Even if one person is convinced that something was never immoral and even if they convince another person of that, it does not mean the act was moral.
The difference between this debate and the cat-dog scenario is that cats and dogs have objective existence, which morality lacks. We can create clear criteria for classifying cats and dogs because we are referencing something which tangibly exists, whereas there can be no clear criteria for classifying things as moral or immoral because morality does not tangibly exist.
Nuance is generally better for debate than sweeping generalizations, nor was my point irrelevant to the issue. You seem determined to avoid debate so I hardly see the point in continuing this exchange; consider this my last word with you on this thread.
Its actually either or [...] "show or prove to be right or reasonable."
I do not think it is possible to prove that something is "right" or "reasonable" because those are themselves both subjective constructions that cannot be agreed upon. To "prove" that something is either is still ultimately a matter of proclamation.
How is it relevant? I need help understanding logic.
You stated: "[...] to justify something, you must prove that it is right or reasonable." My statement regarding the nature of justification as proclamation was in response to that claim, and was derived from the rationale which preceded it in my post. This renders it responsive to a foundational claim in your argument, and thus relevant.
What about my behavior makes it appear as if I want to avoid debate?
You appeared to dismiss both of my points rather than engage them. From my perspective it looked like you were refusing to engage with my first sentence by saying it fell outside the scope of the debate and my second by calling it non-responsive, whereas I saw both to be directly responsive to your argument and within the debate framework. I misunderstood your intent, obviously, since you have since engaged my points; I apologize for being unnecessarily caustic.
I have no need of a secondary account. I think any action can be morally justified, but see no reason to defend the stance as a response to your non-argument. Typically, I reserve substantive replies for people actually interested in debating.
