CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:88
Arguments:117
Total Votes:93
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (74)

Debate Creator

Mack(310) pic



Why be moral?

If there are objective moral standards, why be moral by behaving in accordance with those standards?  Does the fact that those standards would be moral intrinsically mean that you should follow them, or does there need to be further reason?
Add New Argument
2 points

Hello mack:

We're pack animals.. Not all pack animals are moral, but if the pack is gonna stay together, the animals have to be moral to one another..

excon

4 points

We're pack animals..

Oh? Well, there went that bs, "we need to be multicultural" narrative. Of course we always knew that it wasn't about that didn't we? It's about bringing in enough people in poverty to force the system to give the government absolute power and social control.

excon(4266) Disputed
1 point

Hello bront:

DUDE! My pack INCLUDES all the people.. Your pack includes WHITE PEOPLE.. And, I have NO idea why, because you're NOT white..

excon

1 point

Excon,

I like it when we agree.

There is a fair amount of research that indicates the survival advantages (among social animals) of innate behavior tropisms. Reciprocity is one of these, as is a natural antipathy to killing ones own species. These are kind of proto-morals.

xljackson(260) Disputed
1 point

Excon the donkey,

lol What a stupid i, i dunno, analogy,euphemism, example whatever it is, it's still retarded...

Morals are subject to the perspective of the individual.

Your morals Vs. their morals.

You sound like an uneducated hippie at best....

Atrag(5184) Disputed
1 point

Can you explain how the packs that don't have morals are packs if a pack can only stay together - I. E. Continue being a pack - if they have dont morals?

excon(4266) Disputed
1 point

Hello A:

The pack has morals if you wanna call it that.. Some just call it good behavior. In the simplest terms, it's not moral to kill your pack members. That has NOTHING to do with good or evil, and EVERYTHING to do with survival of the pack..

In the main, as evolved human beings, we don't kill our fellow man either. That too has NOTHING to do with good or evil, and EVERYTHING to do with survival of the species.

excon

2 points

I can only speak for myself. I am moral because I want to be moral. Doing the right thing, the kind thing, the enlightened thing, makes me happy, makes the people around me happy, and generally makes life and society better.

Some will say they need a God for that, a threat of hell for that, or lessons from philosophers for that. That's all up to them. I don't need those in order for me to come to the conclusion to try to live morally.

(FromWithin, now you can post your standard no you're not moral because you're pro choice. It's not true, of course, but it makes you feel moral, because you do interpret your religion as making that order, because you do need fear of hell and belief in an ubiquitous supergod to decide to be that way).

marcusmoon(244) Clarified
1 point

You include "kind" and "enlightened" as moral concepts, and then explain that these things make you happy.

I am never sure what people really mean by enlightened, but I know what you mean by kind.

This puts us in "Love thy neighbor as thyself" territory of New Testament morality. It turns out that except for psychopaths, people get an oxytocin burst (and sometimes some dopamine) when we do something kind.

That is extremely interesting. It is an indication that we are hardwired (whether by a deity or natural selection) to tend naturally toward what might be interpreted as "moral" behavior.

2 points

Indeed my motivation could be for either reason. All I know is I like to be the good guy. ............................

Almost everything we do can be traced to some survival need, in other words, "to survive" has been hardwired in us. I think the objective morals as you said,somehow refer to survival, as in my opinion, that fits well with the idea of what we "should" do..

Mack(310) Clarified
1 point

Why should we worry about the survival of the species though? Why not do 'immoral' things that hinder the survival of the species, but help ourselves, and only act 'morally' t the extent that we won't be shunned from society?

beastforever(464) Clarified
2 points

Why should we worry about the survival of the species though?

I don't support the idea, or advertise it in any sense, to worry about the survival of a species, it's just present in us, we are genetically made to survive, although "why" is an interesting question to ponder upon, which would lead to the reason or purpose of life.., of which I have given my opinion in another debate..

Why not do 'immoral' things that hinder the survival of the species, but help ourselves, and only act 'morally' t the extent that we won't be shunned from society?

I need to clear myself upon this, I was referring to the morality that is objective, which isn't different for all of us, something that is common among us, that we all would call a part of morality. Interesting question, the way you've put it, it seems to me that even that is linked to survival, if you look at the animal kingdom,many animals tend to be in groups for increasing their individual survival, I think humans are similar. It's in our genes to stay in groups, in my view, which makes social acceptance a consequence of survival instincts right from our genes. We have "immoral" acts, which are basically ideas conflicting from that of the group we live, in this case the group is society..

1 point

I think that objective moral standards would have to be synonymous with things that you 'should' do, so maybe this question's answer just drops out by definition. I'm not sure that this is a satisfying answer though. How would there be something that you just 'should' do?

We once were a nation doing it's best to live up to common sense moral values derived from our Christian heritage. Even atheists had no problem with mention of our nations Christian values, because they knew it was good for families.

Along came the anti God Progressive movement whereby only political correct moral values are allowed mention in public.

A nation without God's moral foundations will end up with few moral values. Mankind without God will never agree on whose morals shoud be lifted up in a society.

Therefore we are living in an anything goes no fault culture that is bankrupting our nation.

We now have self consumed people who support killing viable babies for any reason.

We now have some self consumed people who actually think it is ok to kill newborns. The slippery slope in actions.

We now live in a culture that thinks one night hook ups are ok, and when millions more unwed mothers live off tax payers, the Godless simply say we need more social programs to bandaid the problem.

Remember the Aids epedemic? The Left refused to address the irresponsible immoral lifestyles that were spreading the disease.

The only thing they wanted to speak to was finding a cure rather than slowing the epedemic by immediately speaking to the irresponsible lifestyles spreading the disease.

There was no shaming behavior that spread the disease. They even refused to ask people who their previous sex partners were so we could warn them and stop the spread.

It's funny how with every other epedemic, there are always quarentines and emergency education on what and what not to do!

But not today when the answers have to do with moral values. Now the Left's only answers are never ending social programs which do nothing to solve the problems with broken families, unwed mothers, etc.

Man has no answers because the bigots who hate God will do anything to make sure we never admit how once lifting up traditional Godly moral values actully worked better than todays anything goes self love culture.

Nobody wants moral laws forced on a nation, but we are seeing that very thing with the Left's Political correct moral values.

What we need is to get back to common sense values where a nation as a whole can lift up what is good and what is right so as not to ruin so many millions of fatherless children's lives.

These fatherless children grow up to be the ones who create the vast majority of our problems. The Left refuses to speak to the problem because it involves moral values!

We watch the sitcoms, MTV, Hollywood, etc. etc. lifting up this amoral anything goes sexual revolution, and the Left says NOTHING against it. These anything goes lifestlyes are EXACTLY what creates the unwed mothers, the abandoned children, etc. etc.

Those one night hook ups lifted up as being so cool on TV are destroying our family unit, and taking our nation down with it. Government and case workers makes for terrible parents.

Hollywood and our media should be shamed for what they are doing, all in the name of money. Playing to the selfsih base desires of mankind for ratings.

But of course, the anti God Progressive movement says NO! We will no longer shame immoral irresponsible behavior no matter how many fatherless children there are.

The compassion of the Left is a myth! To say you care for our chidren and do NOTHING to prevent the millions more future fatherless children, is a lie! They care for buying votes off these Government dependent people, and furthering their selfish Godless ideology.

Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

We once were a nation doing it's best to live up to common sense moral values derived from our Christian heritage. 

That's no where close to accurate.

We now have self consumed people who support killing viable babies for any reason.

I agree. Those damn people who hate condoms and refuse to teach sex education are awful.

Man has no answers because the bigots who hate God will do anything to make sure we never admit how once lifting up traditional Godly moral values actully worked better than todays anything goes self love culture.

The bigots who hate God (you) are the first to make these claims.

Nobody wants moral laws forced on a nation,

LIAR!!!!!!!

But of course, the anti God Progressive movement says NO! We will no longer shame immoral irresponsible behavior no matter how many fatherless children there are.

You are the one who refuses to promote safe sex and sex education.

marcusmoon(244) Clarified
1 point

FromWithin,

I am not sure if you did not answer the question, or if you said why to be moral, but I missed it.

You seem to tie God to morality (or being Godless with immorality).

Do you think it is possible for Godless people to be moral?

NowASaint(1278) Clarified
2 points

I'll answer this one if you pardon me for butting in.

Of course people can strive for and live by a high moral code, and uphold objective morality in their actions. When they do, they reap the consequential benefits...people who consistently uphold objective morals in their actions will generally have more peace and success in the world than those who do not and they are the people we can thank for societal stability as their behavior hinders those who practice evil and disdain morality.

The problem is that even the most virtuous of us is still a sinner, still guilty of breaking the very moral code they try to live by. There is no way by trying to be good that a person can actually be good...one drop of poison ruins the whole pitcher of water.

FromWithin(5443) Clarified
1 point

I answered the question. I said man will never agree on whose morals to follow. Did you miss that?

Without God, mankind has no foundation to hang on to. No two men completely agree on anything let alone the moral values that should be lifted up for the good of our nation.

What is the first thing that happens when a person speaks up against the irresponsibility of one night hook ups?

The Progressives on this site gives you the answer most every time i speak to moral values. People like me are instantly ridiculed as some bible thumping lunatic who wants to judge people and tell them how to live.

What they say about me is a pure lie, but it is always the first knee jerk reaction from bigoted Liberals. Man without God does not want to hear about immoral irresponsible lifestyles as the Aids epedemic clearly showed.

Did you know that Gay men during the start of the Aids epedemic were often having sex swapping parties where men swapped with each other? This was one of the main causes of the spread of Aids, but did you hear much about it on the news? People were not shamed for the behaviors spreading it.

There was no talk of immoral irresponsible behavior spreading the disease. This was the start of our cultures's no fault Progressive political correctness. No longer was shamimg immoral behavior a political correct thing to do.

So I answered the question, but wll never get acknowledgement for the truth of my words.

Let me ask you, do you think one night hookups are immoral?

Do you think men or women abandoning their children is immoral?

Do you think living together with no committment for the children is immoral?

Do you think choosing to illegally take hard drugs the first time is immoral?

Do you think choosing to drink too much, getting drunk all the time, and because of it becoming an alcoholic, is immoral?

Do you think unwed mothers living on welfare and getting pregnant again is immoral?

This culture refuses to shame these behaviors, so you tell me, where are the morals of Godless people?

1 point

I differentiate between morals and ethics. (I know in common parlance the two are often synonymous, but for the sake of avoiding equivocation, the distinction is useful.)

-

My Definitions:

Morals are standards of behavior dictated by some higher power (God, society, tradition, etc.) as universal requirements for human behavior. Morals presuppose that some higher power knows better than individuals how each human's life ought to be ordered.

Ethics are standards of behavior individuals (or organizations) develop as a structured system in order to shape behavior with consistency in accordance with consciously selected values and priorities. Ethics presuppose personal freedom and individual responsibility for living conscious and directed lives.

NOTE: I do not include situation ethics in my definition of ethics. Situation ethics are applied without consistency across all situations, but rather to situations according to the particular needs or desired ends at that moment or for that type of situation.

Consider that Hannibal Lector is clearly immoral according most societies' standards, and amoral in his outlook. He is, however, ethical; he has a code of behavior that is consistent, and which is based on his values and priorities.

-

So, why be moral?

1-To gain the social/financial/security benefits of conforming to societal norms.

2-To avoid the work of reflecting deeply on your values and priorities, and the trouble of working out what behavior is required to live in accordance with your values and priorities.

2 points

I like this in particular. I have no issue with society dictated morals, even though I question some, but I'm guided by ideals and ethics.

By and large, I am moral (socially), because of my ideals and ethical codes.

1 point

Islam has moral standards, Christianity has moral standards, Society has moral standards. The religious moral standards have differences that will never come together with the other religion OR society. They have been different for centuries, will be different for MORE centuries. Society, for the most part have similar rules overall. Societal rules have legal teeth, robbery, murder, rape, protection of property and self, etc..

"Why be moral"?? Why NOT be animals!? Sorry, DUMB QUESTION(s)!

marcusmoon(244) Disputed
2 points

"Why be moral"?? Why NOT be animals!? Sorry, DUMB QUESTION(s)!

Actually, I am not so sure "Why be moral?" is a dumb question.

Various sets of moral standards, which you acknowledge differ from each other, also differ over time. These are not constants based on some universal exemplar that we can all obey to make the world what we want it to be.

Consider the sources of moral standards you named. Islam, Christianity, and countless societies have used their moral standards to justify some unspeakably cruel things.

I went to an exhibit on torture in the Museum of Man in San Diego in 2001 or 2002. It displayed around a hundred actual instruments of torture (that had actually been used on real people) complete with explanations of how, where, when, and by whom they were used. Many were from the Inquisition or the period of the Protestant Reformation.

As horrible as the torture devices were, the piece that disturbed me most was a translated excerpt from an Inquisitor's diary. My memory is not exact, but the words were to the effect of the following.

Today, as I broke the bones and wove the limbs of the subject through the spokes of the wheel, she begged and pleaded for me to kill her and release her from her torment. I did not relent, but kept at my work, knowing that this foretaste of the tortures of hell was a merciful inducement for her to repent and seek the truth of Jesus Christ, and be saved from eternal damnation.

I will sleep well tonight, secure in my righteousness, knowing that today I did the LORD's work.

That last line demonstrates that this is an example of an actual Christian moral standard in action.

Jihadi terrorism is an effect of Islamic moral standards.

The eleventh commandment, which said, "Thou shalt honor and obey thy master and thy overseer," was taught to many American slaves. It is an example of a society's moral standards.

Although moral standards differentiate us from animals, that is not necessarily to our credit.

1 point

If you follow objective morals, virtue, there will be consequences which are generally positive and beneficial for you materially and emotionally. If you don't, the consequences will be detrimental though at times you may find pleasure in indulging in immoral actions....poison in the water is not always noticeable but it's fruit is always destructive.

1 point

If you follow objective morals, virtue, there will be consequences which are generally positive and beneficial for you materially and emotionally. If you don't, the consequences will be detrimental though at times you may find pleasure in indulging in immoral actions....poison in the water is not always noticeable but it's fruit is always destructive.

Following a moral code cannot earn you a place in Heaven, forgiveness, or eternal life. We have all broken that High Code, we all are guilty of immoral acts and all deserve to die and burn in Hell. Justice must be satisfied and One, Jesus Christ, took our place and suffered our punishment so that by Him God is satisfied to forgive us if we will repent of our sins and believe from our hearts that He conquered death and lives as God the Son, and open our hearts to Him and receive Him by faith as our Savior. You will find God reasonable if you will be reasonable with Him, He wants you to have eternal life and that is the gift of God through Jesus Christ the Lord.

Foxtrot(7) Disputed
1 point

Still trying to instill fear in the minds of people I see. No doubt you tell the same fear mongering crap to children and to me that is tantamount to psychological abuse of those children who are vulnerable and impressionable at such a young age and as we are on the subject of morals, filling children's heads with fear of eternal pain and torture is as immoral as it gets.

1 point

........................................................duplicate deleted

1 point

There's multiple perspectives you could look at this from.

-One, is to say that be moral to at least stay in society. A sane human being wants to succeed in

life, and part of that includes not getting kicked out of a society (i.e. put in a prison, executed)

-If you believe that a higher being created us and commands us to follow a moral code, you can

assume that said being has reasons for telling us to follow those morals. Therefore, if we could

discover the reason for the morals to exist, which I think we can through experimentation, then

I'd say that's a much more satisfactory way of telling someone why to be moral than to tell them

that if they don't they will be punished in the afterlife for eternity

1 point

Lacking sufficient instinct to guide our every decision, rational animals need some other guide for conduct if we are survive and thrive. Morality evolved because it fulfills this purpose. The extent to which a given moral code fulfills the purpose that morality as such serves, is the extent to which a given moral code should be followed

1 point

1) My experience has objective significance.

2) The experience of others has equal objective significance

3) Because it is significant I do my best to give myself pleasure and avoid suffering

Therefore:

Because it is significant I should do my best to give others pleasure and alleviate their suffering.

Mack(310) Clarified
1 point

For now, I'll assume point 1 and 2 are correct, although you know I don't like them.

Point three and the conclusion bother me though.

3) "Because it is significant, I do my best to... etc"

Which you follow with:

"Because it is significant I should do my best to ... etc"

My problems:

1). In premise 3, is it really because your experience is 'objectively significant' that you do your best to give yourself pleasure + avoid suffering, or is it just because your experience is significant to you? (I suppose a way to rephrase my original question could be: "Why should you care about what's significant objectively?") If it is only because it is significant to you then the conclusion doesn't follow immediately, you must add another premise to say that other's experiences are significant to you, which answers why you (specifically you, Winston) should be 'moral.' It won't however answer why everybody should be moral in every situation, only why people should be moral in a situation where they value an affected party's experiences. That doesn't fully answer the question.

2) My second issue is with the unjustified insertion of the word "should" in your conclusion, where it wasn't present in premise 3. If you add it into your premise three then you need to justify that as well, taking into account what I brought up in my first problem with your argument.

P.S, Thanks for writing a clearly laid out/structured argument, it makes life a lot easier for me.

WinstonC(854) Disputed
1 point

"1). In premise 3, is it really because your experience is 'objectively significant' that you do your best to give yourself pleasure + avoid suffering, or is it just because your experience is significant to you?"

It is of course significant to me, however this significance is objective. The reason for this is because experience itself is objectively significant. As we've already discussed at length only consciousness itself and conscious experiences create significance.

"(I suppose a way to rephrase my original question could be: "Why should you care about what's significant objectively?")"

Because if something is significant it is significant; it's tautological. We care about things because they have significance.

"If it is only because it is significant to you then the conclusion doesn't follow immediately, you must add another premise to say that other's experiences are significant to you, which answers why you (specifically you, Winston) should be 'moral.' It won't however answer why everybody should be moral in every situation, only why people should be moral in a situation where they value an affected party's experiences. That doesn't fully answer the question."

It's irrelevant whether people recognize or fail to recognize the significance of other entities' experiences. This is because other entities' experiences will have significance regardless of our recognition. We should recognize the significance of other entities' experiences because if we impartially compare their experiences' significance to ours we find they are equally significant.

"2) My second issue is with the unjustified insertion of the word "should" in your conclusion, where it wasn't present in premise 3. If you add it into your premise three then you need to justify that as well, taking into account what I brought up in my first problem with your argument."

Should is used because the conclusion is prescriptive in nature, whereas premise 3 was descriptive in nature. It's certainly true that premise 3 could be changed to be prescriptive in nature if it was the item in question, as follows.

1) My experience has objective significance.

Therefore:

3) Because it is significant I should do my best to give myself pleasure and avoid suffering

This makes me realize that I actually should have made premise 1) "The valence of my experience, and the magnitude of the valence of that experience is objectively significant".

Mack(310) Clarified
1 point

A related question:

If doing something isn't important to you (and won't have any effect important to you) then why should you do it?

WinstonC(854) Clarified
1 point

Just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it isn't important. One can fail to acknowledge the importance of something, yet it will still be important.

I'd also like to note that in my personal experience the deepest satisfaction one can achieve is through positively affecting others, not just oneself.

1 point

Are we really moral? Or is that just a mental defense mechanism? Nobody thinks they're the bad guy. Even the Nazis thought god was on their side. Even ISIS thinks eradicating infidels is the ultimate good deed.

I propose that we're not moral creatures at all. We are social creatures, so we have every have every selfish reason to be civil to those around us. But in a wider scope? I think how we define morality is based on our ideals as individuals and as a species. Some people think that our purpose is to worship a higher power, to such a degree that they'll kill nonbelievers and believe that to be justified. Some people believe that their country holds ultimate authority, and have no problem slaughtering civilians for the sake of a war over oil or some shit. Our morality, I think, is based on what ends justify what means for what ultimate purpose, and that is subjective from individual to individual. Maybe the people who say they're moral because they don't kill people over petty differences are just using what they think is "the moral high ground" as a pedestal, to feel superior- maybe they're just as selfish as everyone else.

People believe what they have to in order to justify animal behavior. We didn't have the witch hunts because we believed in witches, we believed in witches so we could have witch hunts.