CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Morality based on the supernatural is dangerous
Morality is partly innate and partly something that we develop through experience. Most people could not kill another human being because to do so would feel painful and wrong. To me this is what defines humanity - the feeling within ourselves that we don't want to do wrong to other people. It seems to me that Christian do not have this humanity. Whether something is right or wrong isn't a result of the complex human feelings we have but rather what a book tell you. A Christian does things not because they actually feel its wrong due to their experience but rather because some supernatural being says its wrong. It is very common for a Christian to say that morality does not exist outside the word of God and I personally find this sort of people terrifying.
I agree, most people that kiss Gods ass and suck his nuts are due to fear of what might happen, they are self centered pricks, so in other words they only really care about covering there own ass, they are only moral because of the fear of punishment to themselves, not because they feel for other people or life in general or true love for existence.
Morality based on anything but yourself alone is dangerous. Soldiers, as much as I respect them, have a different sense of morality than me, a morality that I would call dangerous, and I believe it is due mostly in part to the fact they they fight for something bigger than themselves, their country, rather than just for their life or their family's life.
Specifically of a super natural force backing your morality, you mentally have a supernatural force on your side, making you feel not only right, but more powerful than your opposition that lacks the supernatural backing you have, and as most people agree, absolute power corrupts. Making that omnipotent force behind you, a dangerous weapon.
Making that omnipotent force behind you, a dangerous weapon.
I only think this follows if execution of religious morality is error prone, and I think that's a reasonable claim. But from within the framework of an absolute morality such as the Christian one, perfect execution of the morale code is absolutely good. Therefore, from the perspective of the religious person, he is the cause of evil which means that he would like to have more omnipotent force behind. From his perspective, his actions are dangerous only because he hasn't got enough supernatural force backing him up. How would you convince him, that he needs less supernatural power to back him up, when he believes the exact opposite?
The problem, though, is that God does not do anything that is immoral, nor does He sanction immoral things. If He were to sanction it, then it would be, by definition, ontologically, good.
Morality in general is dangerous. Most morale systems (if not all) are totally baseless and usually promote barbaric, primitive, idiotic or incorrect view points as the "right" thing to do.
Are you saying that you are a moral relevatist meaning that objective moral reality does not exist and is to be determined by each individual for himself?
This is what I am saying: What makes anything inherently right or wrong? Most if not all morals are baseless thoughts and concepts that are just generally accepted.
A belief that anything is morally wrong or right is just that, an opinion. Moral standards are widely accepted opinions, but regardless, they are still baseless and have no solid claim to intrinsic relevance.
I disagree. Even in a society that says child rape is right doesn't make it right in that society. We have evolved in such a way that certain values are innate in what it means to be human. Suffering, for example, is universally negative. Things that stem from suffering are therefore immoral. In reality moral decisions are more complex and suffering can be justified but yet the starting point for any moral argument is that suffering is a negative or wrong event.
I disagree. Even in a society that says child rape is right doesn't make it right in that society.
Exactly, as I had said, widely accepted opinions in a society are nothing more than opinions.
We have evolved in such a way that certain values are innate in what it means to be human. Things that stem from suffering are therefore immoral.
They aren't necessarily innate because they are old or have been with a part of a certain society's development. Tradition is still just tradition, ideas and opinions that were passed down. Going to church on Sunday is no more or less morale because Christian society evolved with the sabbath being sacred. Same would go with any other societal ideas or morals. Regardless of the value placed on them they still have no innate or intrinsic claim to relevance.
In reality moral decisions are more complex and suffering can be justified but yet the starting point for any moral argument is that suffering is a negative or wrong event.
That is the starting point of some morale beliefs, but not all. In many cases moral systems have imposed suffering on groups for sheer existence. Others have used the "heaven and hell concept", saying that following their moral code would prevent suffering. They aren't all rooted in the same starting point, their beginnings are scattered for the most part.
I have my own independent beliefs about things and I will continue to question and examine, beliefs and ideas. The freedom to crtiticise ideas and beliefs is a cornerstone of a free society. Stay cool, broski.
"A belief that anything is morally wrong or right is just that, an opinion. Moral standards are widely accepted opinions, but regardless, they are still baseless and have no solid claim to intrinsic relevance."
You responded with:
"So is it okay that my father molested me or should I suck it up and take one for the collective, Guitarist Dog."
I never said anything about sexual assault being alright. You're creating a straw man argument, it's as if you were to say "I support public education" and I were to respond with "Hitler supported public education, which means you're nothing more than a nazi." I'm discussing nihilistic ideas in relation to morals, societal opinion and the values and bases placed with them, not sexual assault being acceptable.
I just believe that some things are wrong because of the harm they cause. If something always causes a negative, said action is negative IMHO, of course. I wont do this but if I was to say you are not smart enough to debate because of your age, that would be agist and wrong because it disrespects the value you inherently have as a living being. When I used to attack people, that was a negative because it hurt myself and them. Im not saying you have to be religious but I find inherent flaw in nihlism.
Those Are Terms That People Don't Agree On. That's Where Morals Come In. How Do You Determine Which Sex Acts Are Rape? How Do You Determine Which Killing Is Murder?
Not at this time talking about statutory rape. Whilst it is me be foreign to my beliefs, it is not forcible rape where the victim is drugged or pinned down and raped. Either method of rape removes consent as well as raping someone without the capacity to consent like a dementia victim. By the way, rape against elders is a big prob that no one talks about.
But, you weren't talking about being pinned down either. You just said lack of consent. Rape is defined as something that is bad, but morality determines what falls into that bad category. A lot of these rules are thrown out the window when dealing with enemies of war.
Rape is having sex with someone mentally and emotionally able to consent, but not allowing them to consent, mon cher. If my rapist had drugged me instead, it would still be rape. If he held a gun to mt head, it would be rape. If he was a mob boss and threatened my family, it would be rape. You are very smart. I know you know this.
I am done here. I was molested and raped so I know what I am talking about. You are clueless. Drugging someone so they cant consent and effing them is RAPE.
Law calls it rape because our morality calls it rape in America. I am just trying to point out that morality determines what falls into the category the bad terms encompass.
I argue that a moral system should be required to at least make an attempt at providing answers to questions like "why is this action right or wrong?" rather than just making bald assertions.
"Why is it wrong to kill another person in most situations?"
Because it is a permanent action. There are no do-overs here. If someday you change your mind and regret it, you won't be able to make it up.
Because it will cause pain and suffering to anybody who cared for that person.
Because we know we want to live out our natural lives, and know the pain our loved ones would suffer if we were murdered.
Because the person you are killing is probably a contributing member of society whose work, skills and presence may be of a benefit to the whole, including yourself.
When we search to the Bible to find out why homosexuality is "immoral", we find mainly that God doesn't like it, that it is an "abomination' or "unnatural".
Questions-
What constitutes an abomination? Are all abominations to be hated? Why should we hate them?
Why is something unnatural deemed detestable? Does not the presence of homosexual acts found throughout the animal kingdom suggest it is natural? Should we also seek to abolish such unnatural conventions as cell phones, cars and power plants?
The closest thing logic could give you to an answer why homosexuality would be bad is that it likely reduces the population slightly, but is that an inherently bad thing in a world where many do not have access to the resources available and available wild land is dwindling?
Then there is the other root of morality, the not-specifically-logical one: empathy. We know its wrong to kill or steal or lie partially because we wouldn't people do to those things to us and because we may suffer vicariously if someone does those things to others.
About the closest possible way our empathy could play a factor is if we or someone we felt for fell in love with a homosexual. Unrequited love hurts. But then, there is no guarantee that if the person was straight that they would love you...
Basically, the best answers we get from Christians (or Muslims or other religious groups) for hating gays is that God, an untestable and probably unknowable entity, hates them and has yet to provide an answer for this that works either logically or emphatically. And yeah...that can be dangerous.
Morality is either subjective and changeable, or objective and absolute.
If it is the former, then we cannot say something is wrong; we can only say that X is our preference or against our preference. It would, therefore, be equivalent to preferring ice cream over chocolate chip cookies, or blue over green. There would be neither good nor evil. There would be no justification in saying that something is wrong. Murder, genocide, and rape are all simply preferences, which are subject to change: rape is acceptable to many people, including sociopaths. We cannot do anything, nor say anything, to someone who does something like rape or murder someone. We have no justification in telling a rapist that what he has done is wrong; for morality would simply be my preference, like liking candy over pastries. This is far more dangerous, and the most pernicious belief to uphold, since there is nothing to hold anyone back: we would be neither justified in telling people that flying planes into buildings is wrong, nor justified in trying to stop them.
If it is the latter, then morality is based in God. God is the only thing with which an objective and absolute morality can be had. Therefore, if you don't want the supernatural, then you do not want the objective, which makes subjective morality all that there is; and that is far more dangerous. Moreover, the Bible states, in Romans 2, that the law has been written upon the hearts of man. This is why we have consciences; this is why the world hates genocide, and rape, and murder, and theft, because morality has been written upon their hearts, making us understand that these things are all objectively and absolutely wrong.
So, you're pick: subjective chaos or objective conscience.
Morality is a value that exists, at least to an extent, objectively. Things are immoral by their nature not because society or God says they are. This can also be applied to other values. For example, we can attribute the value of 'sad' to suffering. Is suffering merely 'sad' because subjectively we agree it is? Would it cease to be a 'sad' event if people stopped being sad when they experienced it? Does a sad act need to be experienced in order for it to be a sad act? We use the word sad to describe the quality that is innate in the act of suffering.
I do agree that 'law has been written upon the hearts of man'. It has been written their by nature and how our morality evolves as we find out more about the world about us and how others around us feel.
Things are moral and immoral by their nature. I agree with that. However, an issue arises when we examine the base of the ontology. Sadness, ontologically speaking, has a basis for being ontologically sad, in that it is the result of suffering, or is suffering, from your definition of sadness. Morality, ontologically speaking, has no basis for being ontologically moral, except in God. You were able to triangulate the base of sadness, in it being suffering. However, the only way to triangulate morality is to go to God.
You might say that morality is what causes suffering. However, that is a red herring, since that is what is produced from morality, while we are trying to examine what is morality, and what the base of it is.
You might also bring up the Euthyphro Dilemma. It seems to me that you might think that I think that something is moral from what God says is moral. However, the issue is that it isn't what God says is moral; something is moral when it matches God's character. So, to be moral, it to be God-like, or to bear the image of God. This is the base of morality.
The thing with religion is that you can often 'triangulate' everything to God. This is a very simple process for a Christian. However being that God is probably not real finding the root of morality is not so straight. I do not know why murder is a universal wrong, independent of what a society believes, but it is. It has certain qualities that are immoral. Murder is something that is against certain principles such as a persons right to life, freedom from suffering of the family and victim etc. It is the fact that the act is against principles that underpin what it means to be human is what makes the act immoral.
These principles or rules of humanity are something that exists whether or not there are humans alive that believe them or not. We can debate to what extent these principles should apply to each case but we cannot debate the fact that such principles exist. Hitler was not evil based on a matter of opinion. He was evil based on the fact that he committed acts that were against these universal principles. The dangerous thing for me is that without God a Christian would deny these principles.
The thing with religion is that you can often 'triangulate' everything to God. This is a very simple process for a Christian. However being that God is probably not real finding the root of morality is not so straight.
Thats begging the question.
I do not know why murder is a universal wrong, independent of what a society believes, but it is. It has certain qualities that are immoral. Murder is something that is against certain principles such as a persons right to life, freedom from suffering of the family and victim etc. It is the fact that the act is against principles that underpin what it means to be human is what makes the act immoral.
The begs the question, just like with morality, about the basis of rights.
To identify some acts as being moral because they reflect the aspects of a moral being is also begging the question.
My point is that there is an alternative explanation of where morals come from and that is principles that are inherent in the nature of humanity. It is something that human beings discover rather than something that is entirely subjective that they merely create for themselves.
To identify some acts as being moral because they reflect the aspects of a moral being is also begging the question.
Not at all. I have shown that the base of morality could be God. There is nothing else but God to be the basis of it.
My point is that there is an alternative explanation of where morals come from and that is principles that are inherent in the nature of humanity. It is something that human beings discover rather than something that is entirely subjective that they merely create for themselves.
By definition of saying "come from," we have entered into a regress. The only thing that can come about from a cause and effect notion is for there to be an unmoved mover. You can say it to be the universe, or you can say it to be God. If it is the universe, then we have two questions: (1) in what sense can the universe move itself without thought? and (2) in what sense is morality bound to humanity? I'm telling you right now: you cannot believe in an objective morality without there being God.
Morality based on religion is full of nonsense purity, virginity, obsession of everyone's sex life, clothing..., requirement of worshiping imagine creatures and oppressing that delusion on your siblings... it is backward and dysfunctional,
Then again, maybe it's simply our differing moralities that are dangerous. If we all believe in the same God, we have no reason to harm someone else, even if we are capable of it. If we all all believe in self preservation we also have no reason to harm one another unless the situation should arise.
This argument is not in favor of a supernatural morality, nor is it acting as opposition to self based morality, it is simply a denial of the statement that supernatural morality will be always be dangerous.
Should I take you seriously when you say this. I don't think I'm taking this statement out of context. It seems you are saying that Christians are a separate group from the rest of humanity because they lack compassion.
I agree that dogma can be dangerous but it can also be beneficial. For example children are told not to misbehave by their parents not because they lack humanity but because they haven't yet learned to practice ethical behavior. Some adults need a bit of guidance from a moral code or legal system too...but it doesn't mean they lack humanity.
Definition of Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
I think morality based strictly on science or what feels natural to someone is dangerous. Philosophical, theological and even metaphysical arguments have positively shaped our culture and perceptions.
That;s the thing about painting with a broad brush, it leaves no room for logic. The name of my Twitter profile is TheSkepticalTheist for a reason. i feel that you can be logical and skeptical and be a theist, just like you can be full of fallacies as an atheist. Im not accusing you personally, Im just saying, you know?
Well I guess that could have been some lose hypothesis thst sort of made sense.. However there are atheists people, atheists schools and even atheists countries. We know that this people behave in a moral way. I think you need to reevaluate.