Challenge Debate: Atheists Lack a Basis for Morality
 | ||
|
|
|
|
''''Though if, like the view I'm apparently supporting says, evolution is the basis for morality then that's pretty much correct. Not necessarily biological evolution but social evolution. We humans are social creatures."""" Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy """The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is possible without causation. "" """The ability to get along with each other is a necessary component to surviving as a social species.""" Morality has nothing to do with getting along. A group of rapists can get along Side: Atheism equals no Morality
2
points
Morality is a component of being able to survive as early humans. If early humans had zero capacity for morality then there is no way with our squishy, weak, clawless, fangless, bodies that we couldve survived to reproduce let alone dominate the food chain. We know early humans had empathy, ie: the capacity to contemplate, and understand the experiences of others, because of the way they treated their dead. They buried their dead, tended to wounds, and the locations of their elderly tells us they cared for eachother well into old age. These are empathetic practices which show signs of a capacity for what we would consider moral behavior. These early humans existed thousands of years before christianity even existed. How can christianity declare it has the objective moral standard for humanity when we were practicing empathy before it was even formed? Side: Evolution provides morality
1) The word subjective implies an objective standard that serves as reference. 2) If there was no objective standard, then the word subjective would be meaningless. 3) So when you argue with me that morality is subjective, you presuppose an objective standard of morality that we can reference. Conclusion : Objective morality exists Side: Atheism equals no Morality
1
point
1) The word subjective implies an objective standard that serves as reference. The word objective implies an subjective standard that serves as reference. 2) If there was no objective standard, then the word subjective would be meaningless. If there was no objective standard, then the word subjective would be meaningless 3) So when you argue with me that morality is subjective, you presuppose an objective standard of morality that we can reference. So when you argue with me that morality is objective, you presuppose a subjective standard of morality that we can reference Conclusion : Objective morality exists Conclusion: Subjective morality exists See i can argue like a 12 year old too. You pointing out that objective is the opposite of subjective doesnt prove objective morality exists. Unicorn is the opposite of non-unicorn. Me assuming that no unicorns exist doesnt then prove unicorns exist because i need unicorn as a "reference". What evidence do you have that tells you that morality must be objective? Side: Evolution provides morality
|
2
points
If morality is subjective then one has no basis for claiming that others lack morality. So really it's up to you to prove that objective morality exists and is the only morality. So far everything seems to indicate that morality is subjective. Moral codes have differed between continents, cultures, towns, and even between individuals. Morality appears entirely decided by us, hence why it changes constantly throughout history and will continue to change into the future. Though if, like the view I'm apparently supporting says, evolution is the basis for morality then that's pretty much correct. Not necessarily biological evolution but social evolution. We humans are social creatures. We thrive in groups and, frankly, could only survive in groups. We have no defense mechanism but our minds and our strength in numbers. If we has no semblance of morality arise in us then we wouldn't be able to maintain a cohesive social structure and we would've died out long ago. The ability to get along with each other is a necessary component to surviving as a social species. My question to you is, how can you prove morality is objective and unchanging dispite the clear changes it underwent throughout history and in the present? And how can you prove that your objective moral code is THE objective moral code? Side: Evolution provides morality
1
point
1
point
''''Though if, like the view I'm apparently supporting says, evolution is the basis for morality then that's pretty much correct. Not necessarily biological evolution but social evolution. We humans are social creatures."""" Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy """The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is possible without causation. "" Side: Atheism equals no Morality
2
points
Its not a fallacy. Also stop being a bitch and make a fucking argument instead of whining about mine. In this case we KNOW the two are correlated. We know we evolved, and we know we evolved socially. Those two things happen, fact, end of story. We know we evolved vocal cords for greater capacity for language and brains with greater capacity for memory and empathy. Our brains evolved with these mechanisms due to our greater success as a species when we are able to work together as a cohesive unit. If our early ancestors couldnt manage to live together then we wouldve died off. Biological and social evolution, while not the same thing, are CERTAINLY complementary to eachother as one made the other possible. You see i actually have to go into detail so that you comprehend the argument. Im not a pansy who just yells "fallacy" and then proceeds to declare victory without providing any kind of legitimate rebuttal. Ultimately if the natural world is all there is as science would have us believe then that means morality must be subjective. Because if the natural world is all there is then there is no supernatural and therefore no source for an objective morality to come from as the natural world certainly declares no objective morality. So again i ask you, what is your evidence that there is an objective morality? Side: Evolution provides morality
|
