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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Christians arguing against abortion carry no merit. (read description)
If you believe the book of Genesis to be an accurate acount of the creation of the Earth and you believe it to be about 6000 years old, your opinion on the topic of abortion and "when does life begin?" should be immediatly dismissed.
Well true but not the real reason why their arguments hold no merit. In truth their "arguments" are really opinions. This is a moral issue and in moral issues there is no right or wrong answers, no black and white, only general consensus among all people. Moral issues can be altered and changed to fit the desires of both parties in most cases. For instance were trying to reach an agreement on abortion, one side wants abortion legal the other doesn't. We can then add clauses to the issue for instance, abortion is legal but only in certain cases or only before a certain time limit. We're willing to be lenient, however they stubbornly go against the majority and push for total anhiallaition of it. If someone uses the argument that they can feel pain at a certain age or that the brain devlops at a certain age then that is admissible evidence well worth considering. However religious types untimately fall back to their religion as a basis of why its wrong. Unfortunately for them since government is not to prefer one religion over another this "argument" is useless. Their gods standards of morality mean nothing to congress and rightly so. It's the people's morality and the people's desires that are to be upheld and if the people feel abortion is a necessary option to have then that's too fucking bad for you.
In issues of morality we are discerning what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong are yet to be established yet on the issue of abortion, therfore there is no solid confirmed right or wrong answers.
In issues of morality we are discerning what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong are yet to be established yet on the issue of abortion, therfore there is no solid confirmed right or wrong answers.
Except they have been established on the issue of abortion.... awkward.... By definition of the term 'morality,' one must prescribe to there being an objective standard, otherwise morality is not anything but preference simply disguised with the name 'morality.'
Not unless we had a judge and an executioner to sentence the baby, justly and morally, and to kill it, justly and morally. We do not have the judge in our physical world. Therefore, we cannot justly condemn the baby.
Did I ever say that abortion in of itself is evil? Its objectively evil in certain circumstances. Killing is not objectively evil; but when it is unjustified, then it is. Don't attack straw men by misapplying the objectiveness.
I'm not sure you understand what you are talking about.
Is that because you don't know what objective means or because you don't know what moral means?
When did I say that?
You didn't. I also didn't say you did. I actually was asking a question on what your opinion is. Sometimes people don't understand a question mark. One day you will figure out what the ? symbol means.
No, you committed you.
Awesome sentence. Your words tell a different story.
Is that because you don't know what objective means or because you don't know what moral means?
No, its because you don't. There being certain circumstances in which a rule is applied is not subjective. Subjective means that it is up to subjection, which is to say that individuals determine what the truth of the matter is. If there is an objective fact of the matter that is in X case, but is objectively not in Y case, then it is objective, not subjective. Do not attack straw men like you always do.
You didn't. I also didn't say you did. I actually was asking a question on what your opinion is. Sometimes people don't understand a question mark. One day you will figure out what the ? symbol means.
No, its because you don't. There being certain circumstances in which a rule is applied is not subjective. Subjective means that it is up to subjection, which is to say that individuals determine what the truth of the matter is. If there is an objective fact of the matter that is in X case, but is objectively not in Y case, then it is objective, not subjective. Do not attack straw men like you always do.
If there are a million different ways to decide if something is immoral, how is it objective? What level of thought has to be present for it to not be objective. If there are 7 billion people and I may do something different to each of them doesn't that just mean I have an objective system with 7 billion different circumstances?
I've already said my view.
No, unless you are saying that abortion is not immoral.
Except they haven't. Objective morality doesn't exist. Your god's bullshit morality doesn't apply to the law. Religious arguments hold ZERO merit in this argument and are simply translated as the opinions of the religious person. And opinions of the minority don't overturn laws or science based decisions. The definition of morality does not include a clause that it is purely objective.
Except they haven't. Objective morality doesn't exist.
Then no morality exists. Only preference exists.
Your god's bullshit morality doesn't apply to the law. Religious arguments hold ZERO merit in this argument and are simply translated as the opinions of the religious person.
Actually, in this argument, when talking of morality, my God bases everything. Your system has no bases to ground anything and has no right or wrong, only what one takes to be more enjoyable or less enjoyable. In order to male an moral claims, you have to have God. Otherwise, you are speaking nonsense.
And opinions of the minority don't overturn laws or science based decisions. The definition of morality does not include a clause that it is purely objective.
Opinions don't matter. Have I ever said anything about opinions? I have the entire time stated that these are facts. Objective and absolute moral laws. Science cannot tell you what you ought to do, only that which you are or can do. God is the only way you can base any of your system.
Exactly, morality is subjective based on the consensus of the society and translated into laws that outline them all of which including just punishment for violations of said morality and all subject to change with new consensus.
It's not that hard of a concept.
Actually, in this argument, when talking of morality, my God bases everything.
Prove it. That a god exists, is the god you're talking about, and bases all morality. That's one hell of an order to fill.
Your system has no bases to ground anything and has no right or wrong, only what one takes to be more enjoyable or less enjoyable.
The majority consensus reflecting what's in the best interests of a functioning society (or as you put it what's "more enjoyable") IS the basis to ground things on. We make the right and wrong to reflect what we all agree is right and wrong. Then we either apply the same standards to similar problems and cases or drum up a consensus on new issues. Again, not a hard concept.
In order to male an moral claims, you have to have God.
No you don't. You need common sense and an understanding of our society and present laws.
Otherwise, you are speaking nonsense.
You're claiming the invisible man in the sky whispered what is right and wrong into the ears of mankind. And I'm speaking nonsense....
Opinions don't matter.
Yes they do.
Have I ever said anything about opinions?
Beliefs are basically glorified opinions and you've only stated your beliefs so yeah.
I have the entire time stated that these are facts. Objective and absolute moral laws.
God is not a fact. His "absolute moral laws" are not fact. Prove them.
Science cannot tell you what you ought to do, only that which you are or can do.
It doesn't have to, science isn't concerned with moral issues. That isn't its purpose
God is the only way you can base any of your system.
Exactly, morality is subjective based on the consensus of the society and translated into laws that outline them all of which including just punishment for violations of said morality and all subject to change with new consensus.
Then there is no right and wrong.
Prove it. That a god exists, is the god you're talking about, and bases all morality. That's one hell of an order to fill.
I'm not arguing god to exist. I'm arguing that morality does not exist unless God is real.
The majority consensus reflecting what's in the best interests of a functioning society (or as you put it what's "more enjoyable") IS the basis to ground things on. We make the right and wrong to reflect what we all agree is right and wrong. Then we either apply the same standards to similar problems and cases or drum up a consensus on new issues. Again, not a hard concept.
So if the majority, like during the Nazi days, is to kill the Jews, or to persecute the Christians or the blacks, or to enslave certain people for unjust reasons, should we do it? No. Morality is independent of the people. If it isn't above them, then in no way is it morality. It is only preference with the guise of 'morality' over it.
No you don't. You need common sense and an understanding of our society and present laws.
Common sense can tell you that slavery is wrong? Where did our laws come from? You have no basis. Morality necessitates a God.
You're claiming the invisible man in the sky whispered what is right and wrong into the ears of mankind. And I'm speaking nonsense....
This is irrelevant. Red herring, straw man, and personal attack.
Yes they do.
If my opinion is to murder you, is it right? No. It is objectively wrong. You know in your thumos that it is wrong. You just want to be contentious, holding to your belief, so that you can deny objective morality. You know it exists, but don't want it to. I wonder why... maybe its because you know that you are guilty of objective morality?
There is when we establish it but it is then subject to change.
I'm not arguing god to exist. I'm arguing that morality does not exist unless God is real.
Which is absurd. Even if morality was 100% set in stone and we all just popped out of the uterus with inherent knowledge of right and wrong it wouldnt prove a god. Its a non sequitur to connect the two.
So if the majority, like during the Nazi days, is to kill the Jews, or to persecute the Christians or the blacks, or to enslave certain people for unjust reasons, should we do it? No.
Thank you for proving my point. In todays world morality has changed to where we now see persecution of blacks as morally wrong. Back then most people did not see it as wrong. it was totally fine. Our morality has evolved.
The nazi thing is a little different. The majority didnt actually want to kill the jews they were made to by hitler. Things that occur under authoritarian rule are a little trickier because while they happen it isnt necessarily because the majority agrees its okay. And even if it was morally ok to them, again, morality is subjective and that means subjective not only to time but to place as well. Whats moral here is not the same as whats moral in other places. For example in the US beating women is frowned upon. In the middle east however it is seen as morally justifiable.
Morality is independent of the people. If it isn't above them, then in no way is it morality. It is only preference with the guise of 'morality' over it.
Call it what you want but its referred to as subjective. Whether you like it or not doesnt change the fact that its the way things are.
Common sense can tell you that slavery is wrong?
in the US today thats the moral belief. It was different 200 years ago
Where did our laws come from?
The best interest of the people and what the people wanted?
You have no basis. Morality necessitates a God.
No it doesnt. Its easy to track the changes of morality over time and between places. If objective morality existed every single place and people would be exactly the same morality wise.
This is irrelevant. Red herring, straw man, and personal attack.
It is relevant. it is not a red herring, its what you believe. as for personal attack if you promote such idiotic ideas you open yourself up to it
If my opinion is to murder you, is it right? No.
it may very well be right to you but to the majority it is not and you will be punished and persecuted by them for it.
It is objectively wrong.
No its not. whats moral for you can be different than whats moral for me but our laws and morality as a whole are governed by the majority
You know in your thumos that it is wrong.
because i was taught that it is. If you teach a kid that killing is good they will grow up to believe it. you can in fact condition people to believe contrary to current morality. morality is influenced by many things.
You just want to be contentious, holding to your belief, so that you can deny objective morality.
You just want to be contentious, holding to your (religious) belief so that you can deny subjective morality.
You know it exists, but don't want it to.
no actually i dont know it exists but correct i wouldnt want it to at least not under your god. his morals are shit
I wonder why... maybe its because you know that you are guilty of objective morality?
There is when we establish it but it is then subject to change.
Thats just group preference. A group of people can like the color blue over the color red; it doesn't make it anymore objectively the best color.
Which is absurd. Even if morality was 100% set in stone and we all just popped out of the uterus with inherent knowledge of right and wrong it wouldnt prove a god. Its a non sequitur to connect the two.
God is a necessary condition of morality. If morality, then God. There is morality; therefore, there is God. That is not a non sequitur. You might disagree with the formulation, but it is not a non sequitur.
What you need to understand is the following, and until you can do so, there is no point in continuing: morality by definition must be objective, since there is no such thing as subjective morality, since doing X over Y would only be preference based. You can admit that and be logically consistent, but if you do, you cannot say something is 'right' or 'wrong' only preferred.
Thats just group preference. A group of people can like the color blue over the color red; it doesn't make it anymore objectively the best color.
its not meant to be objective, its meant to be subjective. Also its not just preference its more complicated than that. its the result of culture, location, past events, evolution, and so much more.
God is a necessary condition of morality. If morality, then God. There is morality; therefore, there is God
you cant prove premise one.
What you need to understand is the following, and until you can do so, there is no point in continuing: morality by definition must be objective, since there is no such thing as subjective morality, since doing X over Y would only be preference based.
except by definition it doesnt have to be objective and there is such thing as subjective morality.
You can admit that and be logically consistent, but if you do, you cannot say something is 'right' or 'wrong' only preferred.
Things are declared to be right and wrong, then they can change. What was once percieved as right can change to wrong. Its not a hard concept
its not meant to be objective, its meant to be subjective. Also its not just preference its more complicated than that. its the result of culture, location, past events, evolution, and so much more.
Its subjective to the culture, location, past events, evolution, and so much more. Thats not objective, meaning that there is neither morality, nor right or wrong.
you cant prove premise one.
Premise 1 and 2 are the same. The last one is simply Modus Ponens.
except by definition it doesnt have to be objective and there is such thing as subjective morality.
Subjective morality is logically incoherent. You can't have a subjective objective truth. It either is objective or it isn't. What you just said is as absurd as saying that logic is subjective. No! Logic is objective. To say that logic is subjective is to say that subjective objective things are possible. But that is by definition, logically contradictory.
Things are declared to be right and wrong, then they can change. What was once percieved as right can change to wrong. Its not a hard concept
'Right' and 'Wrong' do not change. What is seen as right and wrong changes, but the absolute does not. If there is no absolute, then there is no right or wrong, since these are both absolute statements. You're being logically contradictory not only to philosophy, but also to common language.
i think i finally get it. your brain literally cannot comprehend the fact that morality has even the slightest possibility of NOT being objective. your brain wont even venture to imagine what subjective morality is. In your mind it is objective and only objective and what im saying to you doesnt make sense because you view it as me telling you morality is objective AND subjective at the same time. Well just try now, just try really really hard to understand that morality is NOT objective. N O T objective. ONLY subjective. ok? there ya go champ
You're not understanding.. Saying 'subjective morality' is logically impossible. Its equivalent to saying that there can be a 'married bachelor.' No there cannot be a married bachelor. You saying that morality is subjective is simply saying that you do not believe in morality. Morality in philosophy and in general terminology is that of being absolute. You cannot say that there is anything as 'right or wrong' if morality is not objective. Something being 'right or wrong' is a necessary and sufficient condition for morality; for if something is right or wrong, then you are claiming a moral truth, and if you claim a moral truth, then you are claiming something to be right or wrong. Saying something to be right or wrong, though, requires for there to be something that actually is right or wrong, otherwise it is in name only, which is not morality, but perceived morality. Hence, as I said, you can say that you think morality to be X or Y, but you cannot say morality is subjective. That is logically impossible. Do you think logic to be illogical?
You're not understanding.. Saying 'subjective morality' is logically impossible. Its equivalent to saying that there can be a 'married bachelor.
i stopped here. again, please comprehend that the word morality is not automatically objective by default. theres nothing making it objective and no reason to believe it is objective seeing as it changes all the time
i stopped here. again, please comprehend that the word morality is not automatically objective by default. theres nothing making it objective and no reason to believe it is objective seeing as it changes all the time
Yes it is... As I said in the rest of the comment, saying something to be 'right or wrong' is a necessary and sufficient condition for morality. But when you claim something to be 'right or wrong,' you are claiming something to be beyond you. You are not claiming preference, but something that is actually right or wrong. This is equivalent to saying that ice cream tastes better than cheese. This is an objective statement without context. You cannot say that ice cream is better tasting than cheese without making an objective statement. That word is is an ontological indicator, meaning that it is what you say it is. So, saying something to be 'right or wrong' is to say that something is ontologically that thing. But, that harkens to an objective standard of what is right and wrong. So, you cannot say something to be 'right or wrong' unless you claim morality to be objective, since they are necessary and sufficient conditions of one another. You're wrong, absolutely and objectively. This is not even a contest. This is simply basic terminology. If you can't understand that, then in what sense should you be in any way debating anything?
They can be belief-based, though. Religious morals would be an example of this. Christians often find homosexuality to be immoral, where as others do not.
Beliefs simply are the triangulation of what is objective. People can have different beliefs about whether the Holocaust actually happened or not. However, there is an objective fact of the matter that the Holocaust did happen (assuming it to have actually happened). So, when religions have beliefs about morality, the beliefs are not the bases of morality, but the beliefs about what the objective morality is.
I don't see how they compare. Some people believe the Holocaust happened, some don't... But the Holocaust really did happen. Yes, I agree... But as far as homosexuality goes, the only objectivity to it is that homosexuality does exist. According to Christian morals homosexuality is wrong, but according to others it isn't. Beliefs play a role in our moral code.
If we were to have an Islamic run government, our moral standards would be a little different that they currently are, do you agree?
No ones denying that beliefs play a role in our own personal codes. But thats not the claim being discussed here. Beliefs and personal codes are irrelevant to what is objectively true.
And what is objectively true when it comes to morals?
If morality is not objective, then it is not morality, but only preference under the guise of 'morality.' When one thinks of morality, one thinks of what is right and wrong. We think of how murder is morally wrong; we think of how rape is morally wrong. In our thumos we know these things to be wrong. However, if morality is simply subjective, then it is merely preference. You cannot say that something is right or wrong, which both have objective meanings to them, if morality is subjective. You can only say that one prefers X over Y. This is not morality, and it is especially not what one thinks of when claiming something to be morally wrong.
Therefore, by definition of 'morality' one has to claim that there are objective truths of what is right and wrong. If you deny rights and wrongs, then you cannot hold to the term 'morality.'
If morality is not objective, then it is not morality, but only preference under the guise of 'morality.'
Morality is simply accepted moral standards.
However, if morality is simply subjective, then it is merely preference. You cannot say that something is right or wrong, which both have objective meanings to them, if morality is subjective.
What are the objective meanings of right and wrong?
Stoning people to death for minor crimes would be seen as immoral today, but it wasn't thousands of years ago. The will to survive is instinctual. This can be seen even in the animal kingdom. However, with murder we have a fear of punishment. There was a time when people were killing each other simply for political gain, it still goes on in some countries. Things like that occurred so often because they could get away with it. Eventually, laws arose as a sort of don't kill anyone and you won't get killed. As we know, laws can influence our sense of right and wrong. Marijuana is still a controversial topic despite the fact that it is less harmful than tobacco or caffeine. Morals come as a result of our fears. If murder was legal, we'd be scared to leave the house. Drugs are illegal because they make people act strange and that scares people. Stealing is illegal because that affects the economy, can lead to retaliation, and in ancient times could have been the difference between life or death. Are there any morals that are not a result of some sort of fear?
You cannot say that something is right or wrong, which both have objective meanings to them, if morality is subjective.
I think that making marijuana illegal is wrong. That is opinion based, is it not?
Therefore, by definition of 'morality' one has to claim that there are objective truths of what is right and wrong. If you deny rights and wrongs, then you cannot hold to the term 'morality.'
There are truths as to what we personally consider to be right and wrong.
If we wish to call this a moral debate then there is no yes or no, no one has a moral compass there for each individual is equipt to evaluate their choices for themselves.
If we call this a logic debate, it's true, if you honestly think the world is 6000 years old I would not trust your logic on any other case.
If you believe the book of Genesis to be an accurate acount of the creation of the Earth and you believe it to be about 6000 years old, your opinion on the topic of abortion and "when does life begin?" should be immediatly dismissed.
Pretty sure that there might be a non sequitur in there somewhere.
Being completely wrong in one instance doesn't mean the person will be wrong on other things that are unrelated. In the instance you point out the ideas are often rejected due to dissimilar reasons. It is more likely that those who believe in a young earth are science illiterate and those who oppose abortion do so based on morality call. If both positions were backed by "science" I would be skepticle because their ability to be objective regarding evidence is in question.
Well... I was going to say "and/or" instead of "and" for more complicated reasons:
It is possible that the rationale only commits the equivocation fallacy if it entirely conflates "life" as a matter of sentience in the unborn with chemical processes occurring in primitive life. This is because Christian views on unborn life can be discredited with their purportedly faulty reasoning on just all "life" foundations (remembering that we'd have have to go with asker's equivalence of both kinds of life), then would not necessarily mean that Christians arguing against abortions all other kinds' of reasoning are false.
But, if their views on unborn life are at the same time discredited by asker b/c Christians arguing against abortion also because they have purportedly shown in it in an another matter (primitive life), then it is now also fallacious via association with equivocal faults at the same time.
It is also possible that it is just incorrect by association if we were to assume that asker's rationale does not confuse the two senses of life.
So, depending on what asker meant, it could or it couldn't
How the hell did you manage to connect a young Earth view with abortion? I just read it and I still can't believe it. My comment was that the 2 ideas were unrelated. Dang, good job.