CreateDebate


Debate Info

101
118
YES NO
Debate Score:219
Arguments:147
Total Votes:262
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (77)
 
 NO (70)

Debate Creator

Flame(52) pic



CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?

2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?

3. What is its source? Where does it come from?

4. What is its purpose?

*ORIGIN Latin conscientia ‘knowledge within oneself’, from scire ‘to know’ (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

*Natural Law: "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

YES

Side Score: 101
VS.

NO

Side Score: 118
3 points

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?

There's no need to bring religion in to the mix. Evolution perfectly explains it. Groups of people that worked together stood a better chance of survival than groups that murdered each other (hyberbole for emphasis).

2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?

Environment and education certainly has an impact, but it's not the only factor.

3. What is its source? Where does it come from?

As stated above, a mix of nature (genes, evolution) and nuture (environment, education).

4. What is its purpose?

Survival in the form of a stable society.

Side: yes
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
3 points

Evolution does not decide morals. Evolution doesn't tell us to not piss on the street or not.

Evolution doesn't decide our actions at all, actually. Evolution is merely the course of life. If you're thinking survival of the fittest (Natural Selection weeding out the weak and having the strong reproduce) that still doesn't decide on morals. If anything, morals conflict with Natural Selection for they create sympathy and empathy for a lesser kind (the poor and sick). Even ethics conflict with Natural Selection for they tell us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do things that may benefit us individually.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with morals and ethics.

Side: No
1 point

ethics conflict with Natural Selection for they tell us not to kill, not to steal, and not to do things that may benefit us individually.

The fittest is not always an individual; e.g. humans who are able to coordinate with other humans are more successful in hunting.

If a human steals from another and is shunned from the group, their chances for survival/procreation are diminished.

Side: YES
Flame(52) Disputed
2 points

There is a problem with the evolutionary ethics. That is, there are other elements of morality that cannot be explained in this way.

Rebuttal:

I. How would you explain that in 9/11, the people that were in United Airlines flight 93 engaged in a fight with the hijackers? The blackbox in the plane revealed that after the passengers learned through their cell phone conversations with family and friends, that the hijackers were using the planes to crash buildings, they decided to commit self-sacrfice to save people.

1. According to the evolutionary ethics, those who give up their lives for others are eliminated from the gene pool. It is a trait that natural selection not only does not encourage but should even eliminate from society. The selfish are more likely to survive and reproduce than are the selfless. But...........

2. Morals appear to have a hierarchy property. There always seems to be a greater good or lesser evil to choose between. In this case, the passengers of flight 93 is a perfect example of that. Hijacking was wrong, but to hijack a plane for the purpose of killing thousands is a far more egregious wrong. It could not have been just "opinions" that prompted them to do that. Certainly not the "genes" that evolution described as "selfish". There is great agreement on moral issues and one of them is "self-sacrifice". If that was not the case, than why where they honored with a memorial, etc.?

Conclusion: There is a great moral agreement that transcends time and culture for "self-less" and that selfish are frowned upon. Hence, evolutionary ethics does not reflect reality. Even Richard Dawkins, the foremost advocate of evolution theory, recognize this in his book, "the Selfish Gene". Read his own words:

“My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.” [Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press (1989), p3]

Side: No
Argento(512) Disputed
3 points

I. How would you explain that in 9/11, the people that were in United Airlines flight 93 engaged in a fight with the hijackers? The blackbox in the plane revealed that after the passengers learned through their cell phone conversations with family and friends, that the hijackers were using the planes to crash buildings, they decided to commit self-sacrfice to save people.

OR

They decided to fight because after talking to their relatives, it became apparent that if they did nothing they would die anyway. In which case, it was their self preservation (or selfish-gene if you like) that prompted the fight, and not some sense of "sacrifice for the greater good".

Side: No
1 point

humans have avery complicated set of ethics, however, evolution can fully explain them. we were far more successful hunters when working in teams than not, but we would still be competing for resources with other groups. This explains why we still have complex drives for cooperation and competition that we still see today.

I don't believe there would be biblical morals that would support competitive nature of man. we are not to be covetous so the capitalistic drive would be unwarranted. Love thy neighbor as thyself etc would mean we should not have borders or compete over resources etc.

Side: No
1 point

i think you are right in terms of where that internal 'feeling' comes from, but in terms of universality - i think the question's author means something more like we all have the same feeling rather than all have a feeling. In that respect, I would have to disagree with you that the answer is true. I think the answers would be different based on the evolution of that culture and even that person.

Side: No
2 points

i got nothing to support my oppinion except that i have reared myself from the age of 16. what my parents taught me is irrellevent to what i KNOW is wrong or right.so yes we all have that inner sense of what is morrally wrong or right.minus wat we choose to think is wrong or right.However im sure there are those that are de-sensetized to feeling that inner sense of moral ........................darn, this is a headtap.

Side: yes
Swryght(161) Disputed
3 points

Just because your parents did not have an influence on you after 16 does not mean that their influence is irrelevant to your perceptual biases. Firstly, Something like the distinction between right and wrong is learned much earlier than age 16, as soon as you start experiencing punishments and rewards from parents and society based on your actions. Secondly, the dualistic bifurcation of right and wrong is so deeply embedded in our culture, and even in our language, that it would be almost impossible for you to avoid internalizing this basic schema, regardless of how you were raised.

Side: No
1 point

ok, i said i didnt know ,so you sound smart ,help me understand what i said wrong. if i was to have had no moral concience than i would have seen fit to have followed in my mothers footsteps...i didnt...some areas i regret(my mum is a smart woman)...other areas my mum has finally seen the err of her ways, just as i have grown i have seen the err of my ways .....im still far off being perfect but between my mother and i ,we are sorting our differences.From the age off 11-16 i ran away 15 times.YES when i was a little girl i thought the world of my mum,she taught me how to lie in the most unfit areas of life...you are right she did have an influence on my child....AND THIS IS WHY.....when my child tells me something, i listen.......when my child tells me they are not happy ,i ask why...when my child asks for the truth,i tell them the truth.,when my child feels threatened, i ask why ,when my child tells me why, i do something about it ,when my goes missing ,i look for my child ....when my child tells me they love me i tell them i love you back..etc ....why?............... because she didnt....and i know where that can lead a child...........so yes i guess you are right, i think.I DONT KNOW..........sorry DO YOU REALISE HOW EASILY A NEGLECTED CHILD CAN BE BROUGHT BY A PEODOPHILE AND HOW A NEGLECTED CHILD CAN ALSO BE THAT UNINPORTANT TO ITS PARENT THAT THE PARENT COULDNT GIVE A HOOT SO LONG AS ITS NOT CAUSING A FUSS.DO YOU KNOW WHAT GROOMING IS DO YOU KNOW WHAT ABUSE OF INNOCENCE CAN DO TO A CHILD .MENTALLY PHYSICALLY ETC AND DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS CHOSE TO IGNORE IT.DO YOU KNOW HOW UNGUIDED A CHILD CAN BE WHEN EVEN MEMBERS OF LAW TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INNOCENCE..........Bifurcation ?...well i got out my dictionary and i checked it out ,im sorry but i dont understand.All i know is im not like 80% of the people ive met. I am glad.

Side: yes
2 points

I JUST FOUND THIS.... "HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS is just about the last surviving mystery.A mystery is a phenomenon that people dont know how to think about-yet.There has been other great mysteries:the mystery of the origin of the universe,the mystery of life and reproduction,the mystery of the design to be found in nature,the mysteries of time,space,and gravity.These were not just areas of scientific ignorance,but of utter bafflement and wonder.We do not yet have all the answers to any of the questions of cosmology and particle physics,molecular genetics and evolutionary theory,but we do know how to think about them.....With consciousness,however,we are still in a terrible muddle.Consciousness stands alone today as a topic that often leaves even the most sophisticated of thinkers tongue-tied and confused.And as with all the earlier mysteries,there are many who insist-and hope-that there will never be a demystification of consciousness" Daniel.C.Dennett,Consciousness Explained,1991

Side: yes
2 points

i like the quote but it does not seem to support or dispute either side of the UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW question.

Side: No
1 point

"These were not just areas of scientific ignorance, but of utter bafflement and wonder"

This specific portion I found very interesting because it is an admission of the consciouness of being outside the realm of science. Science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Science can not answer all questions. It seem that many do not understand that it is not a scientific question.

Side: yes
2 points

our sense of morality does not come from our parents alone, but from the totality of our nature and nurture. our biology and evolution in addition to our experience in society of appropriate behaviour.

if this consciousness was god-given, then anyone of sufficient devoutness to the same god would get the same answer to complex moral questions

Side: No
2 points

I'm thinking there is. It probably has something to do with how you're raised-- (naturally, our instincts tell us not to share and to be competitive and nasty and such, so get along [survival instincts])-- but, there are cases where someone who's raised you or someone who you think knows the right thing to do is WRONG, and you can just feel in your heart that they're wrong. So maybe it's an abstract feeling of divine right and wrong? I'm not a die-hard religious person, but I do believe that there is some consciencious gut feeling in all of us.

Side: yes
2 points

Ahhhh, intesrting ,yeah? It is self-evident when something is right or wrong. You don't need to gather information or use reason. You KNOW. The thing is,....when a person has a choice to make...there are two choices, but......when there is another (independent) thing that judges between both and tells you to choose one over the other, it does not come across as an private, personal decision, or an opinion. It contains a sense of obligation and oughtness. It is a prescription for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. But, we have a choice to obey or disobey this Universal Moral Law. I submit Isasshellbell, that somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting to us, that is behind the Moral Law.

Side: yes
1 point

it is not always evident whether something is right or wrong and there are not always 2 choices. e.g. How should the US war in Afghanistan be waged? there are hundreds of possible answers the people of equal consciousness could disagree on

Side: No
1 point

it could just as easily be that societal morals that pull in the other direction resonate with you

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

"it could just as easily be that societal morals that pull in the other direction resonate with you"

Explain.

Side: yes
1 point

if the internal morality was god-given, then how you are raised would not effect it

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
0 points

"if the internal morality was god-given, then how you are raised would not effect it"

1. Granted, that we learn (in part) the moral law from our parents, teachers, and that it helps develop our conscience. But that does not mean that the moral law simply is "a human invention". Rather, we discover this code and that this universal moral law transcends time and culture. But, you do not use reason to discover it, you just know it. Intution is a genuine form of knowledge. Hence, the very word "conscience" in Latin means: "Knowledge within oneself."

Side: yes
2 points

Killing another human without just cause is an example of universal moral law.

Resent use of modern neuro-imaging of the human brain reveals that acting virtuous actually feels good. "Moral" Behavior sends reward-related brain systems into a pleasurable state even more so than the prospect of self-interested gain. The brain's activity in the process can be detected or illuminated using transcranial magnetic stimulation and MRI technologies. As humans struggle to resist doing what is learned to be bad and immoral that are inherent in self view, that regions of the brain fire 'squelch' to interfere with chemically reacted impulses.

This can support that the feeling of duty toward general happiness for all is internal for all of us.

http://www.neuroquantology.com/repository/index.php?option=com_content&view;=article&id;=111:i-didnt-sinit-was-my-brain&catid;=99:free-will&Itemid;=72

-- with that , and the example let me clarify.

How would it be a 'learned' moral that killing without reason is a good thing?

Side: yes
2 points

In the example - you may not tie in: feelings. Anger would not apply. Zero 'rewards' attached.

Killing anyone and eveything around you for no reason at all, could not be a learned moral.

If you wanted to be alone? nope does not count, there is a goal attached.

Someone hands you some very good food.. "Thank you now you die."

KILL

Let's say someone helps you from falling of a cliff to your death. "woohw - that was a close one, thanks." "Now you die bastard".. Now you push him off the cliff. How does one feel good about that? it does not work like that.

Killing other humans is something that we know to be wrong. We do not want to die ourselves. (most of the time) It's not a learned thing. If it hurts me it may hurt others is not a hard concept for a human to grasp.

I don't see it. How could this be taught to be a good? It can't.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

At exorb:

"Killing another human without just cause is an example of universal moral law."

What about times of war? I know you could argue that soldiers are trained in propaganda that teaches an "Us versus Them" mindset, but battlefields are dynamic and sometimes a soldier will instinctually shoot a non-combatant.

What about riots and large mobs of people? They will sometimes kill people, with little provocation.

Taking an extreme example, what about some of our historic genocides and butcherings of towns? I refer to cases where people invade a peaceful town, invade homes and use a machete or gun to snuff out all life, even though they must face their victims and must deep down know that an unarmed child is no threat, an unarmed mother isn't an enemy, etc.

Side: No
1 point

I know that the universal moral law is not a human invention. Granted, that we learn (in part) the moral law from our parents, teachers, and that it helps develop our conscience. But that does not mean that the moral law simply is "a human invention". Rather, we discover this code and that this universal moral law transcends time and culture. I know that this moral law covers three areas. But, before the three areas can be covered, I believe that it is best to first establish that the universal moral law is not a "human invention" and that it transcends time and culture. Here is the reason why that is the case:

1. There is an independent instinct that judges between the individual's two

instincts that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of

them.

Side: yes
3 points

Very interesting post.

Having read Eckhart Tolle, I think you are confusing "conscience" with "moral law".

If you replace the words "moral law" with the word "conscience" in most of your sentences you will see what I mean.

The last part of your post is the most interesting one.

That "independent instinct" that you refer to is your conscience, and its ability to monitor your mind and your ego (itself being neither of them).

Consider this sentence: "I can't live with my self"

The "I" is your conscience, (the watcher), and the "my self" is your brain and ego.

So, to sum it up, I think that conscience is universal, you will find it everywhere you go (or at least among people that have transcended their self and ego).

"Morals" (a.k.a. values) however, are not something you come to earth with. They are learned/imposed/absorbed from the environment you live in.

Side: No
1 point

our morals are ever evolving - it was less than 100 years since US let women vote.

is it moral for a country to provide basic health care for poor people? or immoral to tax non-poor people to pay for that?

ask 100 devout people 100 moral questions and you will get different answers and reasonings.

morals aren't universal to all people of one faith much less everyone in the universe

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

"ask 100 devout people 100 moral questions and you will get different answers and reasonings"

1. I already answered that in your other post. Morality can not be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions.

"is it moral for a country to provide basic health care for poor people? or immoral to tax non-poor people to pay for that?"

2. Here is a formula: Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment. That is to say. "To derive a moral judgment from a moral standard, we must have some beliefs about the facts of the case. Without such information, no moral judgment can be made”. If the questions are answered, than morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussions. But, there still remains the choice to either to apply them or not.

"morals aren't universal to all people of one faith much less everyone in the universe"

3. Can you give examples?

Side: yes
Mobjectivist(2) Disputed
1 point

Morality cannot be derived from reason. It is derived from EMPATHY. In philosophy class you will learn that without empathy, morality is irrelevant, and without empathy there is no sense of what is just. Child abuse and torture are a great example of universal moral truths--because you cannot dispute abuse to be wrong just because it is merely relative and everyone has their own cultural beliefs. You consider it wrong because it is universally unjust.

Side: yes
1 point

it seems we come back to the same origin of if there is a universal moral law, that is evolution. there is a universal law but only capable for humans to follow, example that animals cannibalize and kill each other, animals do acts of pure selfishness, and only the strongest survive in nature. that shows nature does not follow a universal moral law, but for humans its quite different, humans could of not evolved form the unkind unforgiving nature that has no moral conscience, even Hitler who did horrible things had to convince him self it was right to kill Jews, that is a conscience in essence. nature does not have this "thoughtful mind" the creation can not be greater the the creator, there for nature could not make humans with a moral conscience is does not have. answer is that a stronger force did, that is God. we are personal beings. nature is not, we have a personal creator, nature does to, but was not given a personal conscience, nature is just a mass of bio life, we are a mass of bio life with a personal conscience. God gave us a distinct moral conscience, people have turned away from this moral conscience to do bad things because of freedom of choice, any way off topic. the solution is though that since we have a personal conscience with distinct morals that people natural posses, that can at any time be altered to do bad or good, which still requires a moral set of laws (for instance most terrorist do their horrible acts because it is for the greater good of their objective, that in the long end their acts end up benefiting a stronger safer future for their processes. this is their moral ethical view), we there for as humankind have a moral ethical law.

Side: yes
1 point

There is, but there's no deity involved. When you see a woman get hit by a man do you think to yourself: "This does not sit well with my god\parents\culture"? Well, maybe you do. But what if he hits her in the stomach? Maybe it takes her being pregnant for you? In any case there is a point where you just don't think any more, you react viscerally, what your religion, parents or culture taught you doesn’t even enter your mind and you just want to kick the guy’s ass. And that, my friends, is a universal moral law and it’s something we’ve evolved. The only ones who don't abide by it are by definition sociopaths and psychopaths.

Side: yes
2 points

yet people will gather in a stadium to watch women who were raped get stoned to death or there heads chopped off. almost no morals are universal.

many 'enlightened' societies have come to something approaching the conclusion that the will of one person should be treated equally with the will of another because other approaches tend to leave a majority of people feeling negatively effected which in the long term does not work.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

"yet people will gather in a stadium to watch women who were raped get stoned to death or there heads chopped off. almost no morals are universal"

1. Do you have any concrete examples? In other words, something that actually happened? Evidence.

"many 'enlightened' societies have come to something approaching the conclusion that the will of one person should be treated equally with the will of another because other approaches tend to leave a majority of people feeling negatively effected which in the long term does not work"

1. Give an example of a society that would match your statement.

Side: yes
1 point

Now we are getting somewhere. The problem with relativism, especially with ethical subjectivism which holds that "What true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me" is that a person can go beyond just being slackers, etc. If it is lived consistantly, than it will produce people like: Charles Manson. Ethical subjectivism produces monsters. People that are unchecked, unaccountable to anything, but personal fiat. You are actually echoing Beckwith and Kouki words, "The quintessetial relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience". If a person truly believe in that nonesense, than that person that holds ethical subjectivism must allow treapassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists do not believe theirs acts are wrong. The fact is, NOBODY LIVES THAT WAY. Or do they?

Side: yes
Swryght(161) Disputed
3 points

Flame:

"If a person truly believe in that nonesense, than that person that holds ethical subjectivism must allow treapassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists do not believe theirs acts are wrong. The fact is, NOBODY LIVES THAT WAY. Or do they?"

I think you are misunderstanding ethical subjectivism here. You are right that almost no one lives that way, but an ethical subjectivist would not be logically required to live that way. While ethical subjectivism requires that we regard others' beliefs and actions as morally neutral, this does not inhibit us from trying to stop them when they do things we don't like.

The burglar who is trying to invade my home is not morally wrong from an objective standpoint, but it would still be natural and sensible for me to try to stop him. This is not because I think he is objectively wrong, but rather because I have a personal interest in self-preservation and the preservation of my material possessions and the safety of my family. My belief in ethical relativism does not mean that my instincts, feelings, or senses of responsibility and ownership can not factor into my behavior and decisions. In fact, it does not even require that I refrain from punishing others for their behavior.

In other words, ethical subjectivism does not require me to behave as though I don't care what other people do, or prevent me from trying to interfere when they do something that infringes on my life. My actions and beliefs are just as morally neutral as those of others.

Side: No
1 point

Don't get me started on relativism... But you can't ignore the fact that there is some sort of a moral zeitgeist, also mentioned by Richard Dawkins, in God Delusion I believe. I understand it as a basically bottom up approach to morals. Something not designed, prescribed, agreed upon but more like a product of different social and cultural pressures. The argument is pretty much analogous with the much more prominent creationist v. evolutionist debate so there’s no need to get in to too much detail. And those are a different kind of morals then what we came up with evolution, which could be called baseline. In which group does the self sacrifice fall in I couldn’t tell you for certain, but I strongly believe there’s a thought process behind it. This would put it in the moral zeitgeist category.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

At flame:

Whether or not relativism produces sociopaths or monsters is irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing whether absolute, universal morals exist. The desirability of absolute morals or undesirability of relativism is irrelevant.

Side: No
1 point

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?

Not the way I see it. To me it is an indication that common lessons learned across enough generations end up becoming deeply imbedded in our nature.

2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?

I think it roots itself a little deeper and broader than just our parents

3. What is its source? Where does it come from?

see my first two responses

4. What is its purpose?

Well if it is a supposed universal moral law then I shall suppose one for the sake of conversation/debate

"It is immoral to intentionally cause an injury."

The purpose of articulating such a "law" I will leave to your imagination

If there is universal agreement, we could make this a "universal ordinance" based on that agreement. Laws on the other hand are discovered not created.

hoping to provoke

atypican

Side: yes
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

Hello atypician,

I appreciate your participation and hope that our debate will provoke us to dig deeper than what we would normally want to. I have read some of your debates and indeed I believe it will do just that. I have to say I am looking forward to our debate. I will do my best to be as clear as possible and accurate to the position from which I am arguing. I am learning along the way and I found that defining terms is important to an early stage of a debate. I believe that you have read the definitions that I accept for the absolute morality position and the different forms of relativism, etc. Do you accept the definitions? Or would you prefer that I summarize them and post it again. And/or if you do not agree would you be so kind as to define your position and define morality?

Side: No
1 point

Then to start I think success would be to find an articulation of our (supposed) disagreement that we both agree accurately describes how we disagree.

Do you accept the definitions? Or would you prefer that I summarize them and post it again.

if you want to be nice you could do that, I might respond quicker than if I had to search this whole thread (which I will do) but it might take me a bit longer to distill and digest then if you re-summarized.

Of morality.... I think of it as a condition that develops within our personality as we reflect on past actions and their motives. Sometimes we are proud of our behavior and sometimes not. Someone with active morality is someone who is self critical.

Ok now I will re -read your posts.............perhaps we can challenge one another? :)

Side: No
1 point

The Golden Rule, do unto other as you would want them to do you....Confucius

Side: yes
1 point

@atypician

"So you think that the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to help us develop moral standards that are in better harmony with what actually is bad and good?"

1. I believe that I can answer that if you bear with me and let us go through the categories and see if we can agree which is the best method of finding "truth". I strongly do not think that a, b, or c does that. Shall we?

Side: yes
1 point

My goal right now is to see:

1. If we can agree on the definition of truth and truths about truth.

2. Determing the adequate method of finding truth.

Do you agree on the definition provided/truths of truth?

Are you willing to explore thses categories?

Side: yes
1 point

1. If we can agree on the definition of truth and truths about truth.

I would be floored..

2. Determing the adequate method of finding truth.

"THE adequate method" hmm.. The method I value as most adequate is the scientific method.

Do you agree on the definition provided/truths of truth?

I suspect (I haven't read it yet) that there are aspects of how you articulate it that I can support and others that I will take issue with. Check back later for my response to that post.

Are you willing to explore thses categories?

If I think either of us are benefiting from this, or anyone might benefit by reading it. I will continue.

Side: yes
1 point

I agree with Flame. You moral relativists have no leg to stand on and here's why.

Suppose you consider the moral truth that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. This is universal under these points.

1) torturing a helpless child that cannot defend themselves is considered child abuse.

2) Child abuse is a universal crime no matter where you are in the world.

Abuse is wrong no matter what--even if you get off on it. Why? Because the cons outweight the pros.

Any type of abuse would psychologically damage and physically damage the one being abused. Just because it is fun for you doesn't mean the victim is having any fun being abused.

Empathy is an important part of morality no matter where you are in the world.

Without empathy--morality wouldn't exist.

Without morality--there would be no sense of what is just

and chaos would ensue.

So there must be a law that governs what one ought to to and what one

should not do and that law is the universal moral law.

Enough said. Try telling this person who is in a philosophy class that universal morality doesn't exist--and I'll also think you're trying to sell me the brooklyn bridge in China.

Side: yes
1 point

This is a copied response to another question I answered.

Lets start with this. To assert that something is true is to say that something is definite, unchanging, or completely self-consistant. So, to ask the question is there a universal truth is really asking is there something in the universe that is true. To answer this question we must not accept any bias whether it is religious or none religious. So i our assumtion is that anything is possible but then if anything is possible we also assume the possiblity that nothing is possible. Ultimately this statement cannot be true because if anything is possible that would mean it is possible for something and nothing to be possible at the same time which clearly contradict the whole idea in its' self. The answer is that only somethings are possible because nothing cannot exist no matter how you try to make sense of the idea its' just simply impossible. So there you have the final answer to your question. Only something can exist and nothing cannot that is a universal truth. So universal truths do exist.

Side: YES
1 point

I just one agruement to make. HOW DO WE KNOW EVIL ACTUALLY EXIST!!!!!

Because this is the whole point of this agruement. Who's right and who wrong. At different instances what could be view as right or wrong depends totally on the sistuition. So if morality is subjective because it depends on the nature of the sistuition and the beliefs of the people in the enviroment who is to say what is right or wrong. Just about every culture and people have ideas about what is good or bad but it does necessarly make their ideas right. So this whole agruement is really about peoples perception, points of view, and conscious expression. Ultimately since everybody has a point of view or degree of self-express and no degree of subjection can be applied to either it then becomes a universal moral that freedom of a people is to be respected as long it does impede or restrict the freedom of others, their enviroment, and their own.

THIS CONVERSATION IS DONE. END OF STORY THE YES SIDE WINS.

Side: YES
1 point

WAIT A MINUTE THIS AGRUEMENT STIILL GOING ON I THOUGHT I SAY IT WAS OVER.( I am joking people relax)

Side: YES
Cynical(1948) Disputed
0 points

You don't decide when a debate/argument ends...

Side: NO
6 points

No, there is no Universal Moral Law.

Morals are made up by human beings in order to determine what they feel is right or wrong. Ethics are made up by human beings using logic, as in, they know that one thing inflicts on the other (stealing, murder, etc.) so it MUST not be allowed. Is it wrong? Well, by human standard it is, but at a Universal standard what we do doesn't matter.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
0 points

"No, there is no Universal Moral Law"

Okay, so if there is no moral point of reference, than that means what you think is no more right or wrong than what I think, right?

"Morals are made up by human beings in order to determine what they feel is right or wrong"

Than I have to ask where did those human beings get those morals from to determine what is right and wrong? How do they know what is crooked unless they know what is straight? Because from what you are telling me they seem to be appealing to some kind of standard. So than by who's standard (if theirs than I have to ask where did they get theirs from?) are they measuring and comparing to? Right?

"Ethics are made up by human beings using logic, as in, they know that one thing inflicts on the other (stealing, murder, etc.) so it MUST not be allowed"

Okay, so than, where does this "knowing" come from? That is, the source of this knowledge? Would you agree or disagree than that "stealing, murder, etc." are examples of what people in differant time and cultures do not admire? Granted, people "know" this law, but they do not always obey. Yet, the underlining point is that, in differant time and culture, it is not admired.

Side: yes
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
4 points

1. Exactly, my morals are subjective to your morals.

2. I'm not explaining the origin or morals, but history does show us that morals change in each culture and point in time. Look to the Victorian era or the 1950s. Look to now or Communist China. Morals are simply made by civilization for w/e reason.

3. Ethics, as I said, are built on conflicting with others. We have no moral obligation to feel that an action is right or wrong, but civilization realizes that in order to thrive, they must make sure that one doesn't hurt the other. The Social Contract. If you're wondering where our ability to critically think comes from, the answer doesn't lye within Moral Law, it lies within evolution or something deeper. But no one knows how humans have the intellectual capacity that they do... we just do.

Side: No
3 points

There is no universal moral law. First off, if this were the case so many different cultures would not disagree on some many levels. Even if you take it to the most basic of morals such as killing others, there are still cannibal tribes in some parts of Africa.

Secondly, what would this moral law state? We need more specifics.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
2 points

I. Moral Argument Positions:

a. Relativism:

Holds that societies and/or individuals decide what is right and

wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person

to person.

In this world view, there are no objective, universal moral truths,--just conventions for behavior that are created by people for people and that are subject to change.

a1. Cultural Relativism:

Is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they have all different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality.

b. Objective Morality:

It holds that morals are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.

Thus, this world view holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior.

II. Science, Reason, Intuition.

Now that both positions are defined, I would submit that in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive. Secondly, if morality can't be based on descriptions of the world, neither can it be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions.

Example: If someone told you, "I always lie," you would use reason to understand that this is a paradoxical statement. If it's true, than it's false, and if its false, then its true. But reason does not tell us anything about whether lying is right or wrong or whether truthful confession is virtue or not.

One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. That is, we know it through intuition. Why? Because some things are only known in themselves. There is no need for investigation of facts or reasoning is required.

Example: "Torturing babies for fun is wrong" Reason does not help us respond to this claim. And nobody has to investigate what torture is, what babies are, and what fun is before they can take a moral stance on it.

Hence, it is self-evident; knowledge and our intuition equip us to recognize it as such. Moral intuition is a genuine form of knowledge.

III. Your Points:

1. "First off, if this were the case so many different cultures would not disagree on some many levels"

IV. Rebuttal:

1. The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes.

Example: Let us take on abortion. The pro-life position argues that it is wrong to take a life of an innocent human being. The pro-choice position actually agrees with the pro-life position on this essential point.

What is the differance than? Pro-choice that does not agree that the fetus or the embryo is a human being. The debate is factual. If the question is answered, than

morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussion, and abortion either is recognized as morally neutral, completely acceptable procedure, or as murder.

IV. Conclusion

There are great moral agreements among cultures and that majority of the conflicts are mainly factual debates.

Side: yes
kamranw(232) Disputed
3 points

The majority of moral conflicts actually has nothing to do with morality. There is great agreement on moral issues when the moral systems of other cultures and religions are surveyed. What is it than? Basically, they at their core, factual disputes.

The example I provided goes against the most basic of morals agreed upon. There are tribes that still practice cannibalism. Therefore, morals are all relative.

All morals come from cultural and social background. There are no morals that exist in EVERY person or EVERY culture in the world. Therefore, there is no universal moral.

Side: No
2 points

the bible says women are far inferior to man and should defer decision making etc to the man should not be allowed to speak in church or teach the bible.

how then did we come to the conclusion that women should be allowed to vote? because a sufficient number of people put sufficient pressure on society - the cost of jailing women who disobeyed, educated women showing that they knew more than many men who were allowed to vote, women putting pressure on their spouses at home etc. - our morals changed. based on enough people coming to the logical conclusion that allowing them to vote was less bad than not letting them vote. Slavery and many other things allowed in the bible (yes, even the new testament - see 1st Timothy) have undergone similar transitions. often hindered by people claiming it to be morally wrong

Side: No

If universal morals exist they are still basically useless since humans are not able to access them. Put 100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions - there will be no concesus on the answers or the reasoning behind the answers.

So, if universal morality exists, then it is only used as a way to measure morality of people who cannot reliably access it.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
2 points

"If universal morals exist they are still basically useless since humans are not

able to access them"

1. You seem to overlook the human equation known as "the human will".

Because an individual choose to ignore the moral prescription for behavior

does not in itself prove that there is no such thing as a universal moral law.

Morals are not descriptive, but prescription how a person “ought” to behave.

An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know the right

thing to do in a particular situation.

"Put 100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions - there will be no concesus on the answers or the reasoning behind the answers"

2. There is a difference between factual disputes and agreement in moral issues.

If you were to have “100 people in 100 rooms and ask 100 moral questions -

there will be no consensus on the answers…” because there would be

disagreements upon facts. If the questions are answered, than morality's

prescriptions can enter into the discussions. But, there still remains the

choice to either to apply them or not"

"So, if universal morality exists, then it is only used as a way to measure morality of people who cannot reliably access it"

If you mean "measure" as in judging which to suppress and which to encourage, than yes. But to make the statement that people do not have access, than no.

Side: yes
2 points

HELL NO. Morals are just an illusion. You as a person might have your own morals like IT'S WRONG TO EAT SOUP WITH A FORK or something, but another person might have a different point of view. Really, there is NO point of moralities. Morals and even laws shouldn't be put in the same thing. It's just wrong... I might not have a clue of what I'm talking about but... I read a good article about how moralities are just an illusion, sort of like you'd never jump off a cliff, but if your favorite celebrity would do it or told you too, you'd probably do it. People of higher authority seem to control you whether it's part of your morals or not. Kind of get where I'm shooting at?

It also varies on cultural references. If it's OKAY to eat a dog in _____ and it might not be okay to eat it in _____, you'd still do it.

It's kind of like being gay, YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG or something, PEOPLE THINK IT'S WRONG. But you think it's right, so you continue to do it whether morally wrong or right.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

"It's kind of like being gay, YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG or something, PEOPLE THINK IT'S WRONG. But you think it's right, so you continue to do it whether morally wrong or right"

Questions: Subject of homosexuality

1. Who are you referring to when you typed "YOU KNOW ITS WRONG"

are you referring to yourself in second-person?

2. So than is that an acknowledgement of an individual who did receive an

intuitive knowledge of what they "ought" to do, but willingly choose to disregard it?

Side: yes
2 points

For something to be considered a law, scientifically, it must apply in all situations, and must be consistent in all situations. Gravity, for example, is a law of the universe, because it applies all the time and is consistent every time. Gravity will also apply in all situations regardless of human presence. Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

"For something to be considered a law, scientifically, it must apply in all situations, and must be consistent in all situations. Gravity, for example, is a law of the universe, because it applies all the time and is consistent every time. Gravity will also apply in all situations regardless of human presence. Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally"

First of all, what you just did is what is known as "the fallacy of equivocation". That is to say, "taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another". The word "law" has more than one definition. Secondly, “in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive”. Third, how could you compare the law of gravity to that of moral law? That is another logical fallacy known as "weak analogy", which is, "the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects".

Let us clarify the meaning of the usage of the word "law" in dealing with the question of morality. It used to be called "the Law of Nature" by philosophers of the past. "The Law of Human Nature" is what they meant. The reason it was termed as such was because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. That is to say, they thought that the idea that decent human behavior was obvious. There is a major difference between the moral law and the law of gravity and all other laws such as, biological laws. How so? We can choose to obey or disobey the moral law where as the law of gravity and biological laws, etc. we can not.

Side: yes
vassilgl(55) Disputed
1 point

Here are two definitions of the word law:

1. the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties

2. a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present

These two definitions say that laws are either absolute truths in the universe, or basically just rules made up by people to govern themselves. Since the debate topic is whether or not there is a universal moral law, the debate is looking for an absolute truth in human morals. Therefore a statement of fact (as noted in the second definition) is needed. You acknowledge in your rebuttal that people are not bound by these moral "laws" like they are by other laws of science. So, by definition, these cannot be laws, just differences in opinions. Therefore, there is no universal moral law. Just because your thoughts on morality don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, that doesn't make science inapplicable, it just makes you wrong. Morals are only made up by individuals and the people they allow to influence them, there is no cosmic rule book for everyone out there.

Side: No
2 points

I would agree with this premise: "All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong." However, I don't think this implies either of the following propositions:

1) There is a universal moral law

2) God is the source of moral law

The sense of "conscience" or intuitive morality that Flame carefully articulated is better explained psychologically than theologically. Our intuitions about morality stem from psychological archetypes, or mental-instincts, that are fundamental to the human mind. These archetypes of morality serve adaptive purposes just as do behavioral instincts.

However, just because all humans have a sense of morality, this does not mean that our human morality is universal. We need not apply our moral codes to non-humans, for example. For a code to be universal, it would have to apply to all hypothetical beings (or perhaps sentient beings?) in the universe. Since the likelihood of sentient life on many other planets is very high, the population of the Earth is not a statistically sufficient sample size to generalize to the rest of the universe. Neither is it a diverse sample, since all the members come from the same tiny region of the universe (ie, Earth).

Also, there is no compelling reason to suppose that a God is the source of moral intuitions. I will appeal to Occam's razor and suggest that the theory that moral intuition is psychological is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, and that positing a God as the source of of this psychological fact is to multiply entities beyond necessity.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

INTRODUCTION:

Once again, I would like to give thanks to Swyrgt for his contribution. I have read his arguments in other debates and indeed they are thought provokers. On to the debate. Swryght makes several points that needs to be addressed. I will first define some terms, present my opponent's syllogistic argument, my rebuttals and contentions.

I. Definitions:

Metaethics: The philosophy of ethics dealing with the meaning of ethical terms, the nature of moral discourse, and the foundations of moral principles.[1]

Source:

1 a : a generative force : cause b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : beginning (2) : one that initiates : author; also : prototype, model (3) : one that supplies information.[2]

Archetype:

1 : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example.

2 :idea 1a

3 : an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual.[3]

Sufficient: adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection. [4]

Reason: a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.[5]

All: 2 : every member or individual component of. [6]

Natural Law: "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct” [7]

Better: more advantageous or effective

Naturalism: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. [8]

Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. [9]

Positivism: : a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences.[10]

II. Swrygt's Syllogistic Argument:

1. The sense of "conscience" or intuitive morality is better explained psychologically than theologically.

2. Intuition about morality stem from psychological archetypes or mental-instincts.

3. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to suppose that a God is the source of moral intuitions.

III. Rebuttals:

A. My opponent made this statement and I quote,"All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.” First ,it is an acknowledgement that intuition is a genuine knowledge of right and wrong. Secondly, that every individual of the human race has access to this genuine knowledge. According to the principle of contradiction, “It is impossible for something to both to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect.[11] In other words, he clearly negated his own statement which was, "However, I don't think this implies either of the following propositions: 1) There is a universal moral law. It is saying something that does not correspond to the objective facts. Natural law is defined as, " a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" which Swryght conceded. Thus, my premise that there is a universal moral law stands.

B. Answers people give mainly falls in four categories: Sociological reasons, psychological reasons, religious reasons, and philosophical reasons. My opponent choose psychological reasons. I have to assume that he meant definition (3) which is "an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual.” Since he did not explain C.G. Jung's theory of archetypes than allow me to share a summary:

"term introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung to represent a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain. It is distinct from the personal unconscious, which arises from the experience of the individual. According to Jung, the collective unconscious contains archetypes, or universal primordial images and ideas." [12]

I think I can safely say that we are in agreement that "All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong." However, Swryght denies that there is any supernatural significance by clearly saying that it can be effectively explained from a psychological viewpoint (naturalism). In his debate with Prof. Taylor (Athiest), Prof. William Lane Craig quotes Taylor's book, "Ethics, Faith, and Reason",

"The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.... Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war...or the violation of human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.

Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion." He than concludes, "Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning."[13]

1. Non-theistic Ethical Theories will be incomplete and Inadequate:

We can have ethical systems that make no reference to God, but it is incomplete and inadequate because they still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations. Spiegel made this point, “Meaning and value transcend the physical world and must therefore find their source in the supernatural.”[14] There is a connection between God and morality that even some atheists and skeptics have noted it:

a. “Atheist Michael Martin argues that, “theists give the same reasons as atheists for condemning rape: it violates the victim's rights, damages society. What Martin really means is that atheists can be good without believing in God, but they would not be good (have intrinsic worth, moral responsibility, etc.) without God. (Indeed, nothing would exist without him.)” [15]

b. “The late atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie said that moral properties are "queer" given naturalism "if there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.” [15]

c. "Agnostic Paul Draper observes, "A moral world is very probable on theism." [15]

C. Occam's Razor favors Theism

My opponent made the statement, that "the theory that moral intuition is psychological is sufficient to explain the phenomenon and appealed to Occam's razor. However, he is clearly misapplying this principle in two ways. First a simple definition of what Occam's Razor is:

"Occam's razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power.* [16] In other words, in an attempt to account some phenomenon, the simplest hypothesis, other things being equal should be preferred. Now, here are the two ways Swryght abused the principle:

1. He assumed that both hypothesis were of equal explanatory power.

I have given the reasons why it is of no equal explanatory power. That is, incomplete and inadequate because his hypothesis still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations.

2. He assumed that my hypothesis is false.

Applying Occam's razor does not prove that a hypothesis is false. It is fallacious to make a bold statement such as, "that positing a God as the source of this psychological fact is to multiply entities beyond necessity.

D. Additional Problems

1. Not all beliefs can be scientifically verifiable

Positivism is basically the methodology driving naturalism. If my opponent believes that all knowledge must be scientifically verifiable than he must be aware that it is self-refutting since all beliefs can not be scientifically verifiable. Thus, by the positivist's own standard, positivism must be rejected as unknowable. [17]

2. Science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it.

Most of our beliefs fall outside the realm of science. Spiegel quotes Holmes Rolston, University Distinguished Professor of philosophy at Colorado State University, "Science is never the end of the story, because science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it....After science, we still need help deciding what to value; what is right and wrong, good and evil, how to behave as we cope. The end of life still lies in its meaning, the domain of religion and ethics." [18]

Conclusion:

Swryght declared that there is no basis or cause for belief that God is the Author of the universal moral law (the sense of right and wrong) because it can be effectively explained psychologically. That is, the foundation of moral principles can be verified scientifically. Therefore, denying supernatural significance. However, this is not the case because:

1. Non-theistic Ethical Theories will be incomplete and inadequate because they still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations.

2. If my opponent believes that all knowledge must be scientifically verifiable than he must be aware that it is self-refutting since all beliefs can not be scientifically verifiable. Thus, the positivist's own standard, positivism must be rejected as unknowable.

3. Science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it.

4. It is the domain of religion and ethics (The philosophy of ethics dealing with the meaning of ethical terms, the nature of moral discourse, and the foundations of moral principles) and not science. In other words, it is not a scientific issue.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaethics

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/source

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archetype

[4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sufficient

[5] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Reason

[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all

[7] http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/naturallaw?view=uk

[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism

[9] http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/supernatural?view=uk

[10] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/positivism

[11] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

[12] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32765/archetype

[13] http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor4.html

[14] Spiegel, S. James, "The Making of an Atheist" pg. 34

[15]http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2832571/k.7E46/The_Moral_Argument_for_Gods_Existence.htm

[16] http://skepdic.com/occam.html

[17] Spiegel, S. James, "The Making of an Atheist" pg. 28-29

[18] Spiegel, S. James, "The Making of an Atheist" pg.28

Side: yes
1 point

I. INTRODUCTION:

In order for my opponent to demonstrate that my conclusion is false, he must prove that premise 1 or 2 is false. My syllogistic argument meets the following requirements which are: the truth of premises, the relevancy of premises, and the form is valid. The three terms of the argument have been connected and we can see that the conclusion indeed follows. There is no avoiding it.

II. My Syllogistic Argument:

1. Every law has a law giver.

2. There is a Moral Law.

3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

III. My Contentions:

Contention 1: Our Reactions Helps Us Discover the Moral Law

Our reactions will reveal the Moral Law written on our hearts and minds. It also indicates that relativism is ultimately unlivable. It is not always apperent from our actions, but it is indeed in our reactions.

Contention 2: Without The Moral Law, There Would Be No Way To Measure Moral Differences

If the Moral Law does not exist, then there is no difference between equality and racism, care and abuse, life and murder. Also, statements like "Murder is evil," "racism is wrong," or "You shouldn't do abuse children," have no objective meaning. They're just someone's opinion. Terms such as, "good," "bad," and "worse," would have no objective meaning when used ina moral sense.

Contention 3: Without The Moral Law, You Couldn't Know What Was Right Or Wrong

A person can not know what is moraly wrong unless they have some idea of what is moraly right.

Side: yes
2 points

If any of you (the readers looking at this question) have studied foreign cultures and societies you'd know that very few moral issues have been agreed upon throughout history among all of them.

For example:

Cannibalism, wrong? Not according to certain Polynesian cultures.

Slavery, wrong? It still exists in Africa to this day.

Murder, wrong? Everybody has an opinion on when it could be necessary, if at all.

Rape, wrong? If you follow certain Islamic clerics, and Christian leaders, they'll tell you that a wife should never deny her husband sex, and unconsented sex is rape. Further, in certain Islamic societies the raped person is punished for the crime of having an indecent form of sex.

Child molestation, wrong? It was a common (accepted) practice a thousand or so years ago in a number of cultures. In Thailand there are child prostitutes.

How about young adolescents and older men? This happened in ancient Greek culture.

The point to take from this is that at any time throughout history to the present day, what our society considers right and wrong will change, and has changed, 180 degrees. If we can't find absolute moral positions that are timeless, it's fair to say that there are none or we have no ability to discern them.

Side: No
2 points

I agree. Many people have different views on what is right or wrong, just as the examples you gave stated.

Side: No
1 point

It is hard for me to understand why anyone would answer this queston with "yes"

I dont see any evidence of their being að universal moral law.

There might be in the future, but you dont have to travel very far to see diffirent sets of morals.

If anyone would like to suggest what is the universal moral code then I am all ears

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

Read my arguments concerning "Cultural Relativism" before just posting the same question. Than, if you still do not see it, do not just say " I do not see". Make your case:examples, clarity. Fair enough? Your debating from that position. Read kamranw's argument and my rebuttal.

Side: yes
1 point

Good and evil are morals, beliefs and values that we made ourselves. The universe is not an entity and cannot create such values.

How can we explain good without knowing evil? Similarly, how can evil exist without good? As the Chinese clearly put in their "yin yang" principle, opposites attract. Opposites co exist. One cannot exist without the other.

We can explain our conscience through this. Everyone has different standards of good and evil. There is nothing that is entirely universal. A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing.

Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it.

Adolf Hitler massacred millions of Jews, thinking that he was doing something right. The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic.

Conclusion:

Everyone's morals are different. Some condemn all forms of lying, others do not. We can apply the fact that to some, the values of others, the law and the consequences do not matter. There can be no universal moral law because of such diversity of beliefs.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

First, I would like to give the definition of morality and a criterion that, “…may not be necessary for addressing all cases of morality, it is helpful in many moral contexts” as argued by J.P. Moreland, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California, second, answer your points, and third examine your examples:

"Morality is concerned with our beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong motives, attitudes, and conduct. When an ethicist studies morality, certain value concepts are the center of focus: "right," "wrong," "good," "bad," "ought,""duty," "virtuous," "blameworthy," and so on" ( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p. viii).

I. Set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for defining morality.

1. A judgment is moral only if it is accepted as a supremely authoritative, overriding guide to conduct, attitudes, and motives.

The point of this criterion is that morality must have top priority over all else in our lives. In this way, morality is contrasted with mere custom, etiquette, and, perhaps, law.

2. A judgment is moral only if it is a prescriptive imperative which recommends actions, attitudes, and motives and not merely a factual description about actions, attitudes, and motives.

This criterion expresses the distinction between a mere descriptive, factual "is" and a prescriptive, evaluative "ought" and identifies morality with the latter.

3. A judgment is moral only if it is universalizable; that is, if it applies equally to all relevantly similar situations.

The main point of this criterion is to express the conviction that moral judgments must be impartially applied to moral situations by taking into account all of the morally relevant features of the situation.

4. A judgment is moral only if it makes reference to human flourishing, human dignity, the welfare of others, the prevention of harm, and the provision of benefit.

Inasmuch as this criterion makes exclusive reference to human beings, it is clearly inadequate as a necessary condition for morality.

( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p.x)

a. "The universe is not an entity and cannot create such values"

This is a logical (equivocation) fallacy, "taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another”. The word “universal” is made in refernce to condition number 3, not the cosmos.

b. "How can we explain good without knowing evil? Similarly, how can evil exist without good? As the Chinese clearly put in their "yin yang" principle, opposites attract. Opposites co exist. One cannot exist without the other"

1. Interesting, so does that mean that you do believe that there is such a thing as good and evil? That is, you KNOW differance between right and wrong?

c. "We can explain our conscience through this. Everyone has different standards of good and evil. There is nothing that is entirely universal. A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing"

1. "Everyone has different standards of good and evil"

That is not true. There is a difference between factual disputes and agreement in moral issues. That would be condition 2.

II. Examining your examples: Adolf Hitler and the Serial Killer.

Example 1: Adolf Hitler

"Adolf Hitler massacred millions of Jews, thinking that he was doing something right. The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic.

Notice some points you made:

1. ..."thinking that he was doing soemthing right"

That would be someone who would consistently live out the ethical subjectivism. This is what ethical subjectivism is: it holds that invididuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only.

2. "The outrage, or "moral values" held by many did not mean a thing to him. He had his own moral values, which were Anti-Semitic"

That would another form of relativism in which Adolf Hitler took it to another level which is: "Convemstionalism"The view that each society decides what is right and wrong in which the majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal.

"A serial killer may think what he is doing is right. On the other hand, the community at large would condemn what he was doing. Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"

Notice some points you made:

1. "A serial killer may think what he is doing is right"

Again, another example of consistantly living out ethical subjectivism.

2. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"

1. "A serial killer may think what he is doing is right"

Again, another example of consistantly living out ethical subjectivism.

2. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place. The law was formulated as a means to define what can or can't be done. However, just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"

a. "Yet the community would not be able to define "crime" without it taking place"

Woooooahhhh, are you suggesting that it is not wrong until it happens? So that means just the act is wrong and not the attitude and the motive behind stealing? And that nobody would have reacted even if there was no law?

That goes along with condition 1 and 4.

Question for you: You do know what stealing is? So you need help from a law to tell you what is right and wrong?

b. "just because the law is considered a benchmark mark on moral action by many, does not mean that everyone agrees with it"

There is a difference between agreement in moral issues and factual disagreements.

Side: yes
Swryght(161) Disputed
3 points

Flame Wrote: 1. ..."thinking that he was doing soemthing right"

That would be someone who would consistently live out the ethical subjectivism. This is what ethical subjectivism is: it holds that invididuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only.

How do you get from the assertion that Hitler thought he was right, to the conclusion that he was an ethical subjectivst? Are you making an implicit argument that if someone does something that seems wrong to most people, yet believes in his own heart that he is doing the right thing, that he must be a subjectivist? Stated that way, this seems like quite a leap of logic, which would designate all social reformers as subjectivists.

It seems more likely to me that Hitler had what he thought was an objective view of the world, and that he thought the rest of the world was just wrong from that standpoint. This is the typical perspective adopted by those who view themselves as reformers, wouldn't you agree? Those who think they somehow have access to objective moral truth might be capable of the most harm to others, considering that this sort of thinking seems to be what is behind violent acts of religious fundamentalism, for example the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the Crusades. I doubt that the 9/11 hijackers considered themselves subjectivists, but rather heroes who were trying to make the world an objectively better place by fighting what they saw as injustice. To them, the fact that most of us disagree would have been irrelevent, because in their view we are blinded to the objective truth.

Side: No
2 points

you seem to allow no room for largely agreed upon good rather than devine good.

that women were inferior was largely agreed upon and supported but the bible for all but our very recent history and they are still treated inferior in many cultures. it has changed over time becasue consensus shifted, not because the universal moral good shifted.

Side: No
1 point

No.

You can't say people were bound by similar morals with slight differences adjusting to cultures.

Let me give an example.

In eastern countries being homosexual is immoral ~(in general)

In western countries being homosexual is amoral (in general)

Now when we look in the past a bit more we see that in western societies homosexuality was immoral. Now people look on it as if it is ok. It has been fabricated into society, merged into mentalities that it is ok to be homosexual. You are born with a sense of right and wrong but it's your surroundings throughout life that develop on those ideas.

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

I. Define: Amoral vs Immoral

According to the Oxford Compact English Dictionary, amoral with immoral are some of the common confused words. "Amoral with immoral: amoral means 'not concerned with morality', while immoral means 'not conforming to accepted standards of morality."

Question: Which of the two are you really referring to?

Side: yes
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

There I changed it now... you haaapppyyyy?????

(sarcasm)

Side: No
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

INTRODUCTION

I think there is at least six areas of confusion which occurs when arguing from the relativism position. In this case, you are arguing from the "cultural relativism" which would be "the theory that culture shapes beliefs, provides concepts, organizes value systems, and informs and orients human behavior."[1].

Philosophical Argument: Sociological Reason

I submit that culture can sometimes be wrong and therefore would fall short as an adequate method to justify beliefs. The Nazi’s for example had a culture that accepted the murder of all Jews. The U.S. had a culture that accepted slavery. North India has the culture that accepts the anti-conversion law. [2]

Response to Western Countries being homosexual is amoral

Since you have accepted the definition of "amoral" which is, "'not concerned with morality"concerning homosexuality, it is false to make such conclusion since not all western countries uphelds it. It is an assumtption at best to state it as "western countries" and "general" than some. According to the Gallup Poll, one of the western countries, namely the U.S., does not in general see homosexuality as moraly right. It states that, "Americans may remain intransigent regarding the moral acceptability of homosexuality but attitudes about its legality have made a tidal shift.

Confusion-An Absolute Morals vs. Moral Disagreements

Now, what you are doing is confusing them by pointing out a controversial issue. Just because there are different opinions about homosexuality doesn't mean morality is relative. There are easy and hard problems in morality just as there are in science. "The very ability to make moral assessments is actually evidence that objective moral values exist." [3]

Conclusion

While our beliefs are shaped by our surroundings (sociological reasons: culture, society, parents, friends,) does not necessarily mean that we have to virtually accept literally everything as true or fact since these have been somtimes wrong.

[1] "Cultural Relativism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Thomson Gale. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .

[2] http://www.conservapedia.com/Anti-conversion_legislation_in_India

[3] InquireTruth (Quoting from a person)

Supporting Evidence: May 31, 2006 Galup Poll "Homosexuality" (www.gallup.com)
Side: yes
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

Good post.

TBH My instinctual reaction to the question is that yes there is a universal moral law - in general about what is right and wrong. But when my thoughts go deeper I find many many excuses from this...

I'll try and write a strong argument asap.

Side: No
1 point

Morals however cannot be laws because there is no absolutely truthful definition of right and wrong. Even if there was, the enforcement of those laws relies on the existence of humans. Since earth is the only place in the universe where humans are known to exist. Morals cannot apply universally.

Supporting Evidence: Compare Insurance Quotes (www.direct-quotes.com)
Side: No
1 point

Everyone's morals are different. Some condemn all forms of lying, others do not. We can apply the fact that to some, the values of others, the law and the consequences do not matter. There can be no universal moral law because of such diversity of beliefs.

Supporting Evidence: buy phentermine (www.online-phentermine.com)
Side: No
1 point

1. No, it does not. It is not evident that it is given, much less from a god.

2. Yes, many morals are taught to us by our parents.

3. Morals come from ancestors that began to form tribes.

4. Morals were needed to establish trustworthiness and allow individuals in a tribe to all prosper. today, they serve a societal purpose. Exhibiting a lack of morals ostracizes an individual from a society because it demonstrates that individual cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with accepted standards for behavior.

Side: No
1 point

Well if their is, then it is every Christians position to assume that all people who think seperatley to their ideoligies are inherentley evil which is what they think, and why they are mad.

Why is it that I believe that abortion is ok while someone else thinks that it is wrong. Why do I believe that euthenasia is moral and someone else thinks otherwise.

I'm not evil, and I'm not blocking out any moral judgement. So their cannot be any universal moral law.

Side: No
1 point

I was lost in the Darkest parts of my own wicked ways, spiraling down a path of destruction leading me away from His Almighty ways, and all the while im going down ONLY ONE, He could save me. No matter how far i looked on this lowly planet, i never once found a soul who could manage, to show me the love that i truly needed, because on this planet aint nothing but hate and contempt have been breeded. the lowly snake slithering as he goes through the towns of man looking for lowly lowly souls, to feed on so that it could plant it's evil seeds, and so that throughout the generations nothing but evil and hate we could recieve, but those where the ways of the past, my brothers and sisters. the devil had a hold of us and he managed through our parents, down through the generations His ways have been lost, and because of the us, the devil has turned and tossed, We can All be saved, all we need is Thanksgiving, to the One who Above, for All of His Givings. The devils trying to stop me right now as i speak, but Faithful to the Lord and willit He, that i may be meek. Because it is He not i that gives you this message but it is The One that we All should seek. i know that it is hard to find Rest, as we all go through this test some call a game, every single last one of us, probably, training to gain and retain our fame. But That is not what this life is about, i have a Strong feeling that we are All getting our Water from the wrong wrong spout. because thats all the devil has for us is a little bit, of pleasure, then comes the pain. steady feeding our bodies what i see now Is Insane. because ya'll hafto see that we are all carnally minded, and This is the reason The LORD, us he has blinded, binding, ourselves to our own flesh, so that eventually we would All fail this Test. but know that The Lord, He loves us, and wishes nothing but the best, and all He wants is for us to Love Him all the while through this Test. some wonder why we see nadoes and quakes, He needs ya'll to know that its Ya'lls souls that He is trying to shake. and bake if you will, so the devil may not have his fill, to letchya'll know that there is NONE like that ALMIGHTY AND ALL POWERFULL ONE. i say full because Hes filled with Love, like None that we have seen on this lowly earth, but now that i have SEEN, my Eyes have been UnBlinded, and now it is He, He who signs this, letter so maybe that some of Ya'll could listen, and Maybe get the Message that He is trying to dish, out of His spout, so that ya'll might be fed, with all of His Love, His Water, And His Bread. Don't for a second think any of Ya'll are living, All of ya'll are dead and for the devil are you "living" as i sit here and do this all of the "dome" just know that it is Not me and that this is His tomb. He is singing through me in these words and this song, so that maybe one day we All can be free all the day long, and ya'll can say its cheesy if ya'll want, but just know the devil in you he does flaunt x) i had to stop and show ya'll how i felt about that one, cuz its the truth, and right now i have a Strong feeling He is swinging harder than that brother Babe Ruth, or ballin harder than micheal jordan, and in this song he Is Playing His Accordian. Ya'll just need to know that He is our Guardian, and right now im flying Higher than any single air jordan, because my love i gave to Him more than any of Ya'll so i guess i can say more than them. But dont getit twizted like boi's if ya'll know, that me and moreover Him, have a lot to show. we are all brothers and sisters, but i should call us the missers, because we all fail to see the smaller things in this world, without even thinking twice, what truly brings a man alot of happiness or to see the pain that ALOT of us have in us. i know that we are all hurting on the inside, and for ya'll who say we dont, Boi, you know that is a lie, because only with Him and not that evil leech from down south, can we truly fly. higher than the highest of trees or the tallest of mountains, But in Him we Have to trust, so that We may Drink From The One and Only True fountain, only because of Him can i do this for days, and its Because i gave Him my love, thanksgiving, and praise. so now that i have seen what it is truly to be Man, Men of God, all these hater out there who bout to say something aint nuthing more than sod. sorry if it dont make sense, just know that me and Him the latter first, We are just trying to give His children, ya'll some mother lovin cents. forgive me if i pause for no longer am i a vulgar man life is just a beach, and Now, He is playing in the sand, hopefully in the minds of the young, the daughters and sons, i have my holster, and now the Lord is my Gun, Shining Brighter, than a million suns, times two, because His love is True, actually make that twenty twenty, because He is aplenty, in me in you and All, i just hope that ya'll can hear His call, so that maybe that ya'll may not fall, into the Pit, but right now i can say the devil is probably having a fit, of anxiety cuz he is losing his "children" just know that we are God's and with me He has been pilfering, in my mind day and night, as i have been in my room trying to stay out of sight, of ya'll because all it seems like to me, that nothing to ya'll it would please, more, than to see one of your own fellow brother get shot and fall. when i look around me i dont see any real love, this evil surrounds me, but Now i DO NOT CARE, because the Lord, THE LORD, HE has found me. so now ya'll cannot touch, because with His love, im about to bust. with loving Faith and Trust, i put in Him, so that i can be led away from this life of sin, and Now that i have His Trust, my brotha's and sista's, not just the black ones, comeon now, that just is not a must, there is no such thing man, all that is, is nothing more than an evil thought, brought up in vain, so that maybe a man's soul, that leech, can be bought. Quit being evil, for it is Love, that should be sought, out so once again we may be fed from His Spout, for only He can give us what we need so that in the end we may succeed. my brothers and sisters all we need to do is Believe, and then, Anything, together, WE CAN ACHIEVE. this is an ode to ya'll so in hopes once again that ya'll may hear The Call, and will not fall, so one day me, ya'll, and The Almighty,Perfect, like a prefect without the er, Omnipotent, and Patient ONE, that together we May All Ball. and they keep telling me to stop, but i just cant my brothers me and Him are headed to the top, and right now i got The Heart Of A Lion, King, and pray tell me my brothers and sisters who are reading, what single Beast can stop that king? of the jungle we are running but with Him we can be free. out into the open pasture we all can roam, just know this is not me, and that this is His Tomb. its wierd how they're spelled alike but do not rhyme, im talking bout bomb my brothers, and its One of a Kind. in the Hopes that this petty rhyme, can help lead the black sheep, away from the Blind, being themselves, for who? tell me can save them from that? if you dont answer right then your a part of this blight that runs rampant through the streets, evil im talking about and all it wants to do is eat, your souls because it is angry at the Living God, hahahaha for it is nothing more than a sod, on His Cleat as He is Running, Hoping that some of these Words, hit you right in the stomach, and make you sick, but not you, im talking about the evil you, for we are all children of God, but we have made ourselves nothing more than a sod =( i say with a heavy heart, because all this time we have been playing the devil, his part, but with Him it is nothing but a fart, because He Forgives, and Only Through Him may we EVER, get the chance to Live, and im not talking about on the earth, im talking about another, and maybe one day you can see and i can Truly call you my Brother, for there is Life in Death, but it is only gained through this life which is a test, just know that when we die, if you have lived righteously, on that day you will Fly, for the Lord will Breathe His Breath in you when you die and like i said before You Will Fly, but not if you keep eating from the devil's table, for you can only eat from one, and i hope its Not the devil's table. for if we Eat from Him, we can All go back into His Stable, and only in doing that can we Ever truly be stable, only only if, we are eating from, The Living God's Table. and for ya'll who are sitting at your computers steadily dissin Him, i pray for you, because it you are missin, Him and the bigger picture, just know right now im taking a Big Gulp From His Ultimate Pitcher, not one from the MLB, and if you are listening then i pray that you sea, i mean see, but with Him we can fly over the one before, and higher than mike, dunk it in, right for a score, but not for 2 for it is for 3, because He is Holy in me, but atm holy in you, because you missing some parts, we all need to change, so that we may play His Part, that He intended from the Beginning, because only With Him can we ever be winning, but hahahaha not as long as we are sinning. for that is not the way that we was meant to walk, With Him we was mean to Walk and Talk. once again i say this way i, used to, but we choose to live, is insane in the membrane, but He is using me as His Template, lol or templar whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, ha just without the errrr. as i sit here steadily dissin em i mean the demons in the minds of the children of the One and Only, God Who Is Kind, i hope that they depart, so we can All gaze upon The Divine, not like wine or watch, i aint lil wayne, just know that i feel like im the only one who is sane. because i AM NOT PERFECT, do not get the wrong message for that would hurt me, only He is, and He just wants some love from His Kids, but for some odd reason... we still choose to do the evil leeches bids, for i feel he has sucked to much from us, all of our blood, i mean soul, it has tucked from us, and right now He is aiming at it with a Big Ol' Blunderbuss. to shoot it and unleech it, from His Children's Soul's so one day maybe we can gaze upon, That Wonderful City Of Gold, and dont letit peak your in ter ests, for if you do your not getting whats bests, from this test that He has beset, for our minds to ponder and think on, maybe in some of the hearts out there this message is shining, for He is a Beacon of Light, to shine out all the evils, and end this ugly, hateful blight, that courses through our vains, that nasty garbage that makes us feel insane, because no one is living right, and for That NONE is sane. you can talk and sit there and chatter, but i pray and hope that none get fatter, and im not talking because of mcdonalds, im talking about your ego and pride, because We Alll NEED to push that aside, all we seem to do is breed hate and contempt, sitting there looking for another hurt sould to feed on, thinking it makes us content, but just know NOW people, lolol all your doing is letting the devil be your PIMP! ha ha ha i think that really funny, because in the words of man that just makes ya'll some ho's, and please forgive my trespasses my sisters and brothers, for my vulgar words, because i Did Not mean to hurt, He's just trying to keep our faces from being rubbed in the dirt. but it really shouldnt matter because we are mud, and from One we all came, so can i not call ya'll blood??? nah im not talking about them two glock shotta's, im talking bout from The One Who Has Always Got Us, not us as in the navy, i mean us as in the ones who might sit on that bus, the one going to school and to the ones who drool in class, and all of us who needs a kick in the, pause, ya'll know what i mean, im just sitting here trying not be obscene, all im trying to do is get the bigger picture, through ya'll minds so that maybe one day, we can All WALK IN THE LORDS WAY. forgive me if i make any of ya'll mad, if i do know that i Am sad, but how about ya'll just go to the store and go and grab on of them happy hefty bags, you know i meant glad if you didnt you are simple, and forgive me as i sit here and bust this pimple, lol sorry that was nasty just know that i didnt, and know that we are all fake, and its time for some rhino plasty, or however its spelled im just hoping some hearts will melt, like the plastic we are, and become melded into flesh, as i sit here and type in this Soul Food test, for if ya'll can't hear me then your hearts are so cold, forgive me as i trespass, because, uhm, i Am not trying to be bold, im just tryna through some fia atcha hearts, in the hopes that you may leave the Dark, ness not loch just in case thats watchu thought, all you gotta do is leave your flesh behind, and know that He is the one who Should Be Sought, out so we can drank From His Spout, cuz the Lord Knows, man it has been a drought. we are all so thirsty, but in order to be filled its The Lord who must come firsty x) just know that me and Him are going Stooopid, and for those who are real maaan i thoughtchu knew it. and if you dont i pray you haven't already blew it, up i mean your ego, like a balloon, just know right now i feel like taz boi, yup them looney toones, or tunes whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, just without the err. and i say pre because He was always here, yes before you and me, but with Him i wanna letchu know that we can all be as pure, and as white as the snow, just like powder we can all be melted, i mean melded into the beings we were meant to be, so one day we may fly free as a dove, Right over the sea, so that we all can reach New Jerusalem, yup just right where we was all meant to be, that is the Golden City for those who did not, know, im just hoping that one day we can All be as pure as the snow, because the evil has taunted and flaunted and given us a show, to peak i mean perk up our ears and it, that leech i mean, gave us nothing but fears, fears of ourselves and one another, fears from our sisters and daughter, Father, and brothers, but we have a right to Fear the Living God, because to Him we have all become a sod, He is sorrowful and cries as we follow, the evil being, who was never meant to be followed, and i felt His pain at one point in time, yes i Am talking About the Divine, we both cried together, in my room, because of the little things we miss, something just as small as, a heartfelt kiss... for it is the little things that bring us the greatest joy, not some diamond chain, or a, wind up toy, the biggest thing of all that should, is His Love, should bring us the Greatest joy, in the world, for thats all it is man just cars and noise, all the long going our way, Missing the sweetest noise, zes ya'll know what i mean, im talking about the One who is Never obscene, for He is Just And Right, in each and every single way, and for our sins my borhters and sisters, we have to pay, but do not fret for it is never to late, I think we all need to call upon The Divine, and we should All go on a date, do not worry for on this date there is no rape, or murder, or hate, for that is of the devil, and Your Soul it will take, there is no worries once you follow Him, we should all be hand in hand as we walk down this path, called, life Never having to worry about no pain or strife, or for a bigger picture His Wrath, but ONLY IF WE DRINK FROM HIS PITCHER. for The All Powerful and Righteous Wrath, only comes when you stray from His Path, it is there to show us our wrongs...can you feel His Soul as i sit here and Sing His song? and with Him i will NEVER fall, because with my Brother, I will always Hear His Call. i say we but it is Him, who say these words to in the hopes, that those who have an Ear to listen may never Fall, into the Pit, all you have to do is have Faith, Follow The Ten, Believe, and never EVER Quit, for in order to gain His All Perfect and Good Graces, we have to eliminate ALL the Hate and evil, in all sorts of places, i have a feeling this song was wrote long before, just in His mind and now in mine, and i sing His song in the Hopes, that you follow Him and not any of these "popes" for no hope lies in them, lol and if you truly think aboutit that actually rhymed, just know that im thinking of Him, foremost, but ya'll too as i steadily write This Rhyme, it comes from above yup, Straight From the Divine, in the Hopes that one day ya'll can SEE, exactly it was that we was missing, so we can All fly over the sea. Man this thing is long but i should Say God, because this is His Rhyme, and not from a sod, like me or you, if you real you can feel its True, as His Sword aims at the hearts of His good, flying Straight and Through, lol i mean True, but them if you can follow my friend, all we gotta do is sing Praises and Thanksgiving to Him, until the very end, and give Him all of our love, Because WITHOUT HIM, ha There WOULD BE NO LOVE, all there would be is pain and suffering, and i hope that the ones who are, suffer, i mean acating, Might actually stop and take the time to sit there and be debating, against the devil of course, cuz all it wants to do is, lead us, right, or left, but straight off our course. Lord Please Forgive me, if i am being coarse just know that i am your back, and You Are My Horse, lol ya'll might think He's heavy but He's really not, and i Love Him till Death, i mean Life, cuz i have found It, but back to the point, because i HE HAS TAUGHT, never went to church or none of that, maybe when i was younger but none of that, for our minds our are churches, ha gotit backwards but i feel as tall as the burches, talking bout them trees man im over the seas man, just know i cant, wait, My Father, until You Kick Over My Can Man x) aw man i thoughit was funny, because he's One Cool Dude, and i am His, Bunny, i mean Collie, and know that as i, i mean He, but as i bark, that i have a Strong feeling, that i am playing my Part, or His i prefer the latter but the choice is yurs, because it is His Puzzle, and i am the last part, i cant be for certain because the Knowledge is His, but im just trying to bring His Black Sheep back, you know i mean His KIDS, He thoughtit was funny, But ya'll best Believe that He NOR i the first comes first, but neither one of us is No, pause, Dummy, lol but if you choose you can beat and bite, whatever you do just know it is out of spite, and i dont capitilize because its an evil word, just know me and HIM, are trying to end this wrongful blight, and saying these words i Hope that maybe, just maybe some can be given the Sight, that HE intended us to have, right, from Go, talking bout monopoly,lol but no no more, from the start maaaan all HE ever wanted was us to give our heart, which is HIS, because He gave to us, All that is HIS, HE just Wanted someone to talk to man, thats why HE made HIS Kids, HE was all alone, and then HE built, a Beautiful place for us, and HIM, to walk and talk all the while, just laughing and talking, seeing eachother smile =) because HE is our FATHER, He's not as mean ha as ya'll would believe, just know that HE TRULY IS ONE BENEVOLENT KING. lol ha ha i think this is funny, He knows what im talking about, cuz this is all of the top of the dome with barely a second to pause, Just Know the THE LION KING, Has Opened HIS Claws, Blessed be the children who took the time to listen, to the message that a, and The King is steadily dishin, i say a because i am one too, but know that im a servant, and from a Seed i did Grew, i dont care if it makes no sense to ya'll because i have heard the Lords Call, and they, they know who they are, are always listening, and as He types, through, me i have a feeling they are about to call, Prayer is the Best Wireless Connection X) aint no service down here got that type of Connection, i just hope that i get to see some of ya'll at that intersection, i mean Crossroads, bone thugz n harmony, they said it first, man thats the song man and if you feel their soul, then maybe you should hurt, because those bois on the streets back in the day, all they was doing was searching for some Peace, but in the streets, the oppressors, following the devil, have no love for us in the slums, just know that we All have a Holster and God Is our Gun, we dont need no metal, for The Lord our issues HE will settle, all you gotta do is Have some Faith, saying this in hope that some dont see any wraiths, talking demons people come now and please listen, as the Lord spits his song and these Words HE is dishin, out yup you getting it word of mouf, lol or mouth whichever you prefer just DONT follow that lowly snake, yup the one down south, it might try and offer pleasure and happiness butits all fake, HA what do ya'll expect from a lowly snake? remeber eve as she sat under that tree? sitting there thinking and feeling the breeze? the snake spoke in her Ear temptation it did bring, and after teel me WHO did she fear? she had a split second of happiness and thats all it can give, and after that she felt the WRATH which is ONLY HIS, lol i hope that ya'll see, the way we live people, it just wasn't meant to be, i have a feeling that there all up there laughing, with, not at me as i type out His message, and i pray ALMIGHTY FATHER, THE ONES WHO HAVE AN EAR TO LISTEN PLEASE FATHER PLEASE LET THE HEAR. and the ones who dont i pray you dont hit him hard, maybe just a little tap, just like Babe Ruth, on that baseball card x) Peace be with you my sisters and brothers, just know that HIS LOVE IS LIKE NO OTHER, GOD BLESS ALL WHO FINISHED, AND I PRAY YOUR SOULS NEVER, DIMINISH. ONE HEART IS ALL, AND WITH THAT HEART WE CAN NEVER FALL, lol i said i was finished, but i dont think HE is as you can tell this words are not mine, THEY COME FROM THE UPPER BEING, yup THE DIVINE!!! i think im going to cut Him short and please Forgive me, because i know HE could go all day, BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM IN ME.

Side: No
1 point

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?

No- if that were the case, I feel there would be more consensus. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my beliefs are shared by everyone, but others choose to dismiss them, and I know what I feel.

2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?

Not merely our parents. All of society. Parents, peer groups, media, etc.

3. What is its source? Where does it come from?

Social pressures. presumably values had practical benefit at first, and then became enshrined in tradition. Of course, those like "Do not murder" are still most relevant, which could explain why they are near universal.

4. What is its purpose?

For us to coexist together.

Side: No