CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
17
Yes No
Debate Score:39
Arguments:37
Total Votes:40
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (22)
 
 No (15)

Debate Creator

Flame(52) pic



CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW? Part 2

This thread is basically created for just myself and atypician. However, you can post your arguments on the first one that I have created.

Yes

Side Score: 22
VS.

No

Side Score: 17
1 point

"Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change.

I suppose there is some merit to that. I am not sure why you are making this truth claim"

"when we begin to believe the earth was round instead of flat, the truth about the earth didn't change, only our belief about the earth changed"

"Conversely it was once true that "flat earth" was the prevalent belief That is no longer true, so in a sense truth has changed. The truth about what most people believe"

1. The proposition, "People at that time frame believed that the earth was flat" is true. Yes, because that specific fact is matched with the specific proposition. Does that change the reality about the earth's shape? No. We can not change reality. Reality tells us if our proposition is true or false and not the other way around. In fact, the word "true" is defined as " (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs (2) : conformable to an essential reality." [1] What is "reality"? ": something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily." [1] Therefore, it was the belief about truth that changed and not the reality of the earth's shape.

[1] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.

Merriam-Webster Online. 16 January 2010

Side: yes
1 point

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "Fidelity and Constancy" [1] are two aspects of truth. J.P. Moreland argues that, "...truth appear to be primary: faithfulness and conformity to fact." [2] If you notice, "constancy" means, "1 a : steadfastness of mind under duress : fortitude b : fidelity, loyalty 2 : a state of being constant or unchanging."[1] Truth does not change. Also the meaning of "fidelity", 1 a : the quality or state of being faithful b : accuracy in details : exactness." [1]

[1] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.

Merriam-Webster Online. 16 January 2010

Supporting Evidence: Correspondence Theory of Truth (www.boundless.org)
Side: yes
1 point

"Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge. (i.e. gravity existed prior to Newton)

This calls to mind the "tree falling in the forest" dilemma"

1. What is "reality"? ": something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily." [1] The "dilemma" itself does not nullify this fact.

[1] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.

Merriam-Webster Online. 16 January 2010

Side: yes
1 point

Truth is discovered

Yet in most cases imperfectly. What was Plato talking about when he said "This I know, That I Know nothing" or Confucious when he said " To know that you know nothing, this is the beginning of knowledge"

Can you relate these statements to what we are discussing?

It's tough to admit when you are wrong if you are clinging to a false "truth"

You opened this argument criticizing relativism. Can you also see that there is at least as much opportunity for error in absolutism?

Side: yes
1 point

Bottom line for me is that countless propositions once considered to be truthful and factual are later discovered to poorly correspond with reality. The danger of excessive certainty is in my opinion worse than the danger of excessive doubt. One connotes an attitude of humility and the other of pride.

I admitted that my argument about changing facts was weak, yet you bring it up on this new thread? Please if you don't mind, in your own words please distill the point you are trying to make.

Side: yes
1 point

"neither a, b, c, is adequate as a method to justify beliefs: Granted. But isn't it true that philosophical considerations (especially as you have defined them) more than encompass a,b and c?"

"I have been thinking about the relation between religion and philosophy. I think an individual's religion consists of those specific principles of philosophy that they accept, try to live up to and promote. Do you find anything objectionable about that?"

I. Introduction

I think that there are some who have a fallacious view of theism (the Christian Faith) worldview because of confusion on some things and as a consequence come with all sorts of conclusions that are myths. Namely: faith and reason are incompatible and Christianity has an avowed anti-intellectualism attitude.

A. Faith and Reason

"without faith it is impossible to please God"-Hebrew 11:6

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1

1. Faith: noun 1 complete trust or confidence

2. Reason:verb 1 think, understand, and form judgements logically [1]

In his book, "Your Mind Matters", Stott made this statement concerning the relationship between faith and reason, "Faith is not credulity. To be credulous is to be gullible, to be entirely uncritical, undiscerning and even unreasonable in one's beliefs. But it is a great mistake to suppose that faith and reason are incompatible. Faith and sight are set in opposition to each other in Scripture, but not faith and reason" (34). [2]

Hebrews 11:6 is many times misnterpreted to mean "blind faith." It does not eliminate reason accompanying faith or a reasonable faith because it clearly states, "without faith" and not with reason it is impossible to please God. The text does not exclude "evidence" but actually implies it. For faith is said to be "the evidence" of things we do not see and thus justifying beliefs. Third, God in fact calls upon us to use our reason (1 Pet. 3:15). Indeed, He has given "clear" (Rom. 1:20) and "infallible proofs" (Acts 1:3 NKJV) so that we do not have to exercise blind faith. [3]

B. Anti-Intellectual Attitude

Again, Stott made this statement, "God's purpose is both, zeal directed by knowledge, knowledge fired with zeal." So, "commitment without reflection is fanaticism" (7). [4] Scripture does indeed give examples of "principles of philosophy." Philosophy is concerned with the critical reflection on justification and evidence, right? Philosophy is a quest for truth and since all truth is God's truth, then philosophy will contribute to our understanding of God and His world.

a. Geisler gives us some examples of Scripture encouraging these very principles:

1. The classic case of apologetics in the NT is Acts 17 where Paul reasoned with the philosophers on Mars Hill. He not only presented evidence from nature that God existed but also from history that Christ was the Son of God. Indeed, he cited pagan thinkers in support of his arguments.

2. Jesus was constantly engaged in apologetics, proving by signs and wonders that He was the Son of God.

3. Moses miracles in Egypt were an apologetic that God was speaking through him.

4. Elijah did apologetics on Mt. Carmel when he proved miraculously that Yahweh is the true God, not Baal.

5. The Apostle Paul did apologetics at Lystra when he gave evidence from nature to the heathen that the supreme God of the universe existed and that idolatry was wrong. [5]

Conclusion

The Scripture does not prohibit against philosophy as such, but against false philosophy (Col. 2:8). The context of the verse makes it clear that Paul was refer erring to a specific philosophy which was an incipient gnosticism which had infiltrated the church at Colosse (73). [6]

[1] http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/faith?view=uk

[2] Stott, R. W. John, "Your Mind Matters." Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1972.

[3] http://www.normangeisler.net/theneedforapologetics.html

[4] Stott, R. W. John, "Your Mind Matters." Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1972.

[5] http://www.normangeisler.net/theneedforapologetics.html

[6] Geisler L. Norman and Feinberg Paul, "Introduction to Philosophy." Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980.

Side: yes
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

This is how I view faith:

Faith: Action that indicates a belief that efforts spent will be worthwhile.

I am not one who thinks faith and reason to be incompatible.

[It is a myth that]Christianity has an avowed anti-intellectualism attitude.

How this "myth" came to be I cannot trace precisely, but perhaps it is from over respected (worshiped?)theologians like Luther who say things like "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has" , "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding." , "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."

I was wondering when you would start introducing "holy book" verses. Care to discuss the meaning of holy? I think it's closest synonym is "perfect" what do you think?

Side: No
fire(41) Disputed
1 point

I kind of agree and disagree with you. There is such a thing as blind faith, like a child has for their parent when they are younger then they open their eyes and find that their parents aren't so wonderful. but, belief and faith should coincide, you must be able to make sense of what it is you have faith in.

Holy is also means pure, and the word of God is a pure form. But, for a person to say that they are holy or pure is a complete stretch of the truth.

Side: yes
Flame(52) Disputed
1 point

"It is a myth that]Christianity has an avowed anti-intellectualism attitude"

"How this "myth" came to be I cannot trace precisely, but perhaps it is from over respected (worshiped?)theologians like Luther who say things like "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has" , "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding." , "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians"

1. The problem with that "belief" is that it is unreasonable to even make a conclusion on just a few statements about Martin Luther's alleged hatred for philosophy and reason. It is completely out of historical context. Here are the following reasons why that is false:

a. Luther believed that philosophy and reason had important roles to play in our lives and in the life of the community.

b. When Cardinal Cajetan first demanded Luther’s recantation of the Ninety-Five Theses, Luther appealed to scripture and right reason.

c. In 1501 he enrolled in the University of Erfurt where he studied the basic course for a Master of Arts (grammar, logic, rhetoric, metaphysics, etc.).

Martin Luther's main point was that properly understood and used, philosophy and reason are a great aid to individuals and society. Improperly used, they become a great threat to both.

Supporting Evidence: Martin Luther (www.iep.utm.edu)
Side: yes
1 point

I. What we agree so far:

1. Definition of truth: “That which corresponds to its object or “that which describes an actual state of affair”

2. Truths and beliefs are different things.

II. Truths about truth:

1. Truth is unchanging even though beliefs about truth change.

2. Truth is discovered not invented.

Side: yes
1 point

I. What we agree so far:

1. Definition of truth: “That which corresponds to its object or “that which describes an actual state of affair”

2. Truths and beliefs are different things.

II. Truths about truth:

1. Truth is unchanging even though beliefs about truth change.

2. Truth is discovered not invented.

In progress.............

Side: yes
1 point

"Worldview: "A set of assumptions or beliefs about reality that affect how we think and how we live"

This use of the term "worldview" is what I am uncomfortable with. We must understand someone's thoughts/beliefs pretty thoroughly to be able to speak meaningfully of their "worldview". To address someone's worldview then, how many of the persons underlying assumptions/beliefs must be taken into account?"

1. Worldview: Etymology: German, from Welt world + Anschauung view

Date: 1868: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint. [1]

I think that you would agree that everyone has a "standpoint" (set of assumptions/beliefs) about the nature of the universe in which we live and our place within it (reality). Presupposition means "pre-supposing things are this way and not that way. That is, "pre," or "before," means we are accepting a view of things before we have a lot of evidence for it. As I previously posted that philosophy is concerned with the critical reflection on justification and evidence. The job then is to discover which core beliefs are most accurate. That is to say, corresponding to reality.

_________________________________________________________________

I. Worldview: Areas of beliefs

Beliefs:

1. Reality (ontological or Methaphysics)

2. Knowledge (Epistemology)

3. Human Nature (Anthropology)

4. Human Problems

5. Solutions To Human Problems

6. Human Value

7. Human Purpose

8. Ethics

9. Suffering

10. Meaning of Life

11. Human Desire

_________________________________________________________________

Now, in order to address someone's worldview, the person's Key beliefs and/or important ideas are underlined. That is to say, the strongly held beliefs. Obviously we are not going to know every single beliefs, but when you know the core or, key, or important ideas of the person, than you will have (if not perfect) a clear idea concerning his/her standpoint about reality and life. Almost ( I hope it conveys the proper understanding) as if profiling.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weltanschauung

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.(Also just for your information i have no religious afillation that would influence me to say this i just thought about for a long time and this was the only reasonable answer i came up with.)

Side: Yes
2 points

No..... just, no.

If by "law" you mean "invention" then of course not. Never will all people accept one moral law, it doesn't exist.

If by "law" you mean "discovery" then also no. Morals are subjective, they must be invented and cannot be discovered.

Side: No
1 point

No. There is no evidence supporting the existence of a moral law. "Good" and "bad" are not intrinsic properties that an action or a thing has, it is a label that humans apply to an action or a thing, just like "Beautiful" and "Ugly."

For us to know that there is a universal moral law, we would have to have access to it. If we had access to it, we wouldn't debate about morality. The fact that I spent most of my English classes last year debating the morality of abortion with my teacher is proof that a universal moral law doesn't exist.

Side: No
atypican(4875) Disputed
1 point

"Good" and "bad" are not intrinsic properties that an action or a thing has, it is a label that humans apply to an action or a thing, just like "Beautiful" and "Ugly."

I think there isn't anyone in the world (save a few psychos) that would describe overall conditions in Haiti right now as beautiful. What if you looked at good as "that which promotes health" and bad as "that which is detrimental to health" I believe it would be easier then for you to recognize certain things as intrinsically bad and good. Please enlighten me where you notice delusion. :)

Ok. How about this. Is there anything at all that pretty much everybody agrees on?

It is easy to state that there are no universals. But logical progress depends on identifying/establishing universals. How else can we discuss particulars?

Do we speak the same language? Yes and No

It is for this reason I could argue on either side of this debate.

Side: No
Argento(512) Disputed
1 point

The conditions in Haiti are what they are.

Consider this:

A man breaks his leg while working the fields. People go to him and say "that is so bad, you were so unlucky". He replies "good thing, bad thing... who knows!"

A week later, his country goes to war with another country, and the government orders general conscription. But because of the leg, the man is exempt. People go to him and say "oh you are so lucky, this turned out good for you, you won't get killed in the war". Man replies "good thing, bad thing... who knows!"

The story actually goes on forever, with the man losing his horse etc etc. But the one thing that stays the same is his reply: "good thing, bad thing... who knows!"

You see, the label of "good" or "bad" is relative to the time frame, specific conditions, and it is confined and relative to perception. These labels also require comparison to a default status. Given that none of these parameters ever stay the same, it is illogical to assume that there is a universal "good" and "bad".

You simply have no access to the future to know if something will still prove to be bad after the passage of time.

Furthermore, we must make a distinction between a universal moral law and a universal truth. For me, the first is illogical/impossible, but the latter is indeed possible. Which brings me to my last point.

The only universal truth out there is this: all you have is the now.

Side: No
E223(193) Disputed
1 point

First off, the fact that there are a few "psychos" in the world that consider death a good thing is PROOF that a moral, universal law DOESN'T exist. If a law (not a legal law, but a law of nature, physics, etc) is violated, that means it's NOT a law.

Second, there are PLENTY of people that think that what's happening in Haiti is a good thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAbwM

That's one example of a person that thinks it's a good thing. Sure, I think that he's crazy, but he doesn't think that he's crazy. Morality is relative.

Just because I think something is good doesn't mean that everyone else thinks that it's good. I hate religion. I hate it, I think that it's immoral, I think it's dangerous, I think it's bad. A clear majority of the world would disagree with me. Because we disagree, a universal, objective moral law doesn't exist.

"Pretty much everybody" isn't a law. If it was true that "pretty much all matter's affected by gravity," Newton's law of universal gravitation wouldn't BE a LAW.

Just because we need "universals" to create "logical progress" doesn't mean that "universals" exist.

Side: No
1 point

No. But there are very widely accepted standards. Things with unanimous or nearly unanimous agreement are sometimes referred to as "universals"

We didn't "invent" these standards but we are the ones responsible for their development and maintenance.

Side: No

The topic was a deterrent from my posting my opinion in this debate. The only debate I would be more hesitant to enter would be choice vs. destiny. In an attempt to go to bed at a decent hour I won't even think of responding (in my zeal) to every point I feel I could, rather just recall the main points as this debate has already taken a life of it's own.

I would have agreed that there is a universal law but since the topic states "moral law" I decided to vote against it. Moral relates to matters of conscience which in humans is frail at best. It doesn't take much damage for a human to silence his/her conscience all together.

I don't feel it's possible to assign good/bad to this law as humans in their various stages of life change opinions so drastically, that their definitions of good/bad may completely reverse. Nothing is good or bad, it just is. This reaches farther than many are willing to see, as my belief compels me to understand even the worst atrocities as having occurred, and "now what?", spending very little time delving the murky depths of humanity's darkness.

I agree with argento on this topic, as he mentioned, a broken leg is a blessing in disguise. These petty human formalities "just are". Where I want to take my point, is past these small examples to a macrocosm. I view the world as a balance of positive and negative. Even these titles distinguish between a cosmic good/bad, right/wrong but they at least reject the labels good/bad which suits my purpose. I view positive and negative forces at work in all levels one may view reality through. It's a basic yin/yang, black dog/white dog, order out of chaos/chaos out of order principle. There is no good or bad here, there is not good or bad in torture, there is no good or bad in genocide, they just are. This is a difficult idea to swallow and I know many if not all of you will disagree with me, but since I was asked to voice my opinion, I'm voicing it. I feel there is a universal redemption at the end of a life-cycle in which all beings run through their lives and suffer accordingly. It's without label, it's without shame, and it's without memory. Life is what you choose to make it for yourself, you may grow your spirit, or let it falter. I view this world as a basement for all the atrocities to traumatize every single individual. I view this world as a place to work (and yes experience joy and such along the way) but mostly as a place to have work done. To experience the range of possible emotion, to make mistakes, to hurt, to be hurt, to scar a life and in return scar your own. To carry scars with dignity and learn from them. To make a mistake so grave, that you will never make it again. There is no good or bad as these are just fleeting viewpoints that may change with the next sunrise. There are two kinds of love, one chemical and one universal. The chemical love isn't love, just what poets call love. It's a feeling that will pass, and if you view it incorrectly, it will slip by without your having experienced it. It isn't good or bad for a woman to be in an abusive relationship. She keeps herself there because she hasn't learned the lesson. When she learns the lesson, she walks away. It isn't good or bad to rape, what that person is committing is sexual torture, and it will be returned to them. The universal moral law is karma. It transcends lifetimes, it's a cross carried through them. Some unfairly reap the benefits of good deeds in past lives, and we look at them with envy. Some are struck by lightning 10 times in one lifetime, and we wonder what they did to deserve it. I won't type anymore, I feel like I'm preaching, but this is what I believe and strive to live by in my own life. I believe in the law of karma, and anyone that does, I want in my life. They are good people. Whether I believe in a Christian god or not, I value that Christians over all try to lead good lives and I have respect for them for it. The same goes for any religion, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, if they sacrifice themselves to do (even what they think) is right, they're living within the universal law. I'm sorry if someone else typed this, I'm tired and didn't read much of the debate.

Side: No
1 point

CONSCIENCE is a jewish conspiracy to prevent a new Hitler rising.

Side: No