CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
36
God exists. Murder is not wrong.
Debate Score:73
Arguments:74
Total Votes:75
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 God exists. (31)
 
 Murder is not wrong. (26)

Debate Creator

lolzors93(3225) pic



Objective Moral Values and Evolution

If it is true that evolution is a blind process, then how can you trust your moral intuitions? If the psychological supervenes on the physical, and morality does not always lead to the greatest chance of survival, while immorality, on the other hand, does (e.g. genocide based in eugenics), then is it not highly implausible that our psychological realm, having our moral intuitions, aligned so closely with the objective moral realm?

 

Or, are there no objective moral values? Or was evolution not blind, guided by a God?

 

Surely not that there are no objective moral values, lest murder have no meaning.

 

Therefore, God exists.

God exists.

Side Score: 37
VS.

Murder is not wrong.

Side Score: 36
1 point

This is from William Lane Craig's Argument for God in his book with Sinnott-Armstrong.

Side: God exists.
Amarel(5556) Disputed
2 points

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans know what is objectively moral, which is not necessarily true. Nor does it need to be true of an objective morality to exist. It can be the case that evolution is true, morality is objective, and there is no God.

Murder is wrong by definition, regardless of the context of this debate.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

I said this to you in another post:

"That's true. But, what justification does one have for saying that objective morals exist, when we have no understanding of what is objectively moral? If we have hooked onto some aspect of objective morality, then it is highly implausible that we were able to hook onto the moral realm without guidance from God, as evolution is a blind process."

I was wondering if someone was going to be smart enough to respond with this rebuttal. You did well.

But, that still raises the question: if we have some inkling of morality, then we it is still highly implausible that we got it, by evolution, a blind process, while, if we do not have objective morality, in what sense are we justified in believing that there is, as we have no understanding of it?

Side: God exists.
Harvard(666) Disputed
1 point

Murder is wrong by definition

Murder is 'unlawful/illegal' by definition, not 'wrong'.

Side: God exists.
1 point

I can accept that gods truly exist and are instrumental to any sort of moral reasoning. I'm not one of the more "metaphorically challenged" atheists.

Side: God exists.
3 points

If it is true that evolution is a blind process, then how can you trust your moral intuitions?

You probably shouldn't. Morality should have reasons and make sense. So you shouldn't really trust them blindly. That said, if you did and do not have certain disorders, it could prove safe.

Just because evolution is blind, that does not mean it is random (using the definition of "all possibilities have and equal odds of occurring" ). Rather, evolution allows for us to develop tools that make the blindness irrelevant. If we did evolve morals, they either serve us or fail to hinder us. You can trust them the way you trust your thumbs.

If the psychological supervenes on the physical, and morality does not always lead to the greatest chance of survival, while immorality, on the other hand, does (e.g. genocide based in eugenics)

This assessment is erroneous. It implies that evolution works with individuals, but instead it works with populations. And in this global society we now find ourselves, it may be focusing on the species as a whole. In that light genocide, is far from beneficial.

As far as morality not always leading to greatest chance of survival...it generally DOES as long as all parties are on the same page. This is precisely why societies have always imprisoned, killed or banished those who will not play the moral game.

then is it not highly implausible that our psychological realm, having our moral intuitions, aligned so closely with the objective moral realm?

They aren't two different things though. This argument would not likely work on someone who believes morals were evolved.

Or, are there no objective moral values?

Yes and no. There is a general overall framework, outlined in detail in my reference link below. But different people experience these pulls of morality in different ways and at different strengths. This arguably carries an undercurrent of subjectivity.

Personally, I find morality to have elements of both, though if forced into the false dichotomy, I would choose subjective.

Or was evolution not blind, guided by a God?

Nothing about evolution has to have changed for morals to evolve.

lest murder have no meaning.

So this would somehow remove our sense of loss when someone kills our loved ones? Or our sense of empathy to know how dark that can feel without having to directly experience it?

Supporting Evidence: ref (www.nytimes.com)
Side: Murder is not wrong.
2 points

Murder is simply any killing that is deemed 'illegal' (and of a human but that's not so important right now) thus it is only subjectively wrong, to whatever body is governing.

You said (paraphrasing you) that it is odd to trust evolution when it is blind, how I ask you personally if you also think it is odd to follow blind faith?

Side: Murder is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Murder is simply any killing that is deemed 'illegal' (and of a human but that's not so important right now) thus it is only subjectively wrong, to whatever body is governing.

So, if I tortured all children on earth and then killed them all, unjustly, would you say that I had merely done what was my preference and that I did not do what was wrong?

You said (paraphrasing you) that it is odd to trust evolution when it is blind, how I ask you personally if you also think it is odd to follow blind faith?

I never said that it is odd to trust evolution when it is blind. You don't trust evolution in any capacity, except to get to what is most conducive to survival. I said, on the other hand, that evolution is a blind process that has no direction.

So, it is simply irrelevant to ask about blind faith.

But, even if it is not irrelevant, I would not say that it is odd to follow blind faith at all. By definition of what faith is, it very easily could be construed, by definition, as being something that is followed with blindness. Yet, I don't believe Christianity in any way is blind faith. There were numerous early church fathers who believed the Bible, the apostles, etc. We trust the Bible, the early church, and Jesus, as we believe the historical stories that Jesus performed miracles, died on the cross and rose again. You might disagree with the notion that the stories are trustworthy, but that in no way makes the faith blind. It simply makes it a faith, just as we have faith that our scientists are honest in their endeavors. So, I don't really see your point to have any real, substantial meaning. And if it did, it has been answered.

Side: God exists.
DrawFour(2662) Disputed
1 point

I'd simply say what you did was in my opinion wrong. You seem to have your mind clouded with the idea that right and wrong are objective, when in actuality they are not. Do you think an ant would think it's right that you stepped on it? How about a cow thinking it's right that you hold it in a cage from the moment it's born, then killing it one random day never letting it get an exercise? The answer is no it wouldn't yet stepping on ants is legal, and so is veal, because to humanity these are easily forgotten acts, and thus subjectively are not wrong.

I'll skip straight ahead to your why you don't consider Christianity to be blind.

You say that what you're reading is and hearing from your pastor is simply history, but I say that even if it is (even though it seems highly unlikely that history would be magical while the present is not) even if it is history, it's stories being passed down from older generations that could have been altered and you can't deny that, and it's all without evidence to top it off. Making the faith in fact very blind. You're blindly trusting that your pastor isn't lying, or blindly trusting that what your pastor is saying is exactly what happened, as if he were there, because he blindly trusted that his pastor and so on told the right story from the time.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
2 points

Of course survival of the fittest does not give rise to morality. In fact morality often hinders survival. This doesn't mean there is a God but rather that morals came about by something other than evolution.

To me your argument is like say "this tree is rotting. Evolution doesn't explain that. There is a God."

Side: Murder is not wrong.
1 point

There are no 'objective' morals, especially in the case of murder. Humans are not objected to the idea of no killing. Say you were protecting your offspring from an attacker, for instance, and the only way to do so would be to critically harm that attacker. And this critical harm caused said attacker to die. This would be classified as murder- so to say murder is objectively wrong would mean that failing to save your offspring (which is instinctual) from said attacker would have been objectively right if you had the opportunity to kill the attacker but chose not to. Now you have dead offspring and an irrelevant to your life attacker/killer in stable condition..

Side: Murder is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Killing is not equivalent to murder.

But, nevertheless, I agree with the logical conclusion that non-theism leads to an inability to account for objective morals. Therefore, if there is no God(s), then we cannot honestly say that murder is wrong, outside of mere socio-biological impulses or preference of action.

Side: God exists.
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

Killing is not equivalent to murder

In the example I use it is. I also did not specify a location where the killing happens. Murder means an 'unlawful' killing, and 'lawful' implicates a location with laws- and some places deem any form/reason of a human killing another human being unlawful, thus defines murder.

Side: God exists.

The fact that there would be no objective morality if evolution were true is not proof that evolution is false. No objective morality is simply a result if evolution were true.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Did I say evolution is false? The argument is not that evolution would be false. The argument is that evolution would lead us to the conclusion that there is a God, if objective moral values are existent.

Side: God exists.
The Phantom(453) Disputed
3 points

But the premise that objective morals are existent is not an established premise, so this is a somewhat irrelevant question.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
Amarel(5556) Disputed
1 point

Objective morality could be simultaneously true with the process of evolution if humans are not entirely aware of what is objectively moral. This does not require the existence of God.

Side: God exists.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

That's true. But, what justification does one have for saying that objective morals exist, when we have no understanding of what is objectively moral? If we have hooked onto some aspect of objective morality, then it is highly implausible that we were able to hook onto the moral realm without guidance from God, as evolution is a blind process.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
The Phantom(453) Disputed
1 point

There must be a supreme authority as the basis for objective morality. Otherwise what is to differentiate between an objective moral and subjective opinion? Whether that God is any specific God is not a necessary inference, it may just be "Anselm's God", that being which no greater can be conceived.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

It would require a creator. Since you say 'unaware' then someone must become aware, and if, apparently, no one is aware then when someone does become aware then they would have to inform others- unless, of course, everyone becomes aware at the same time. You seem to speak of objective morality as if it is some sort of 'god'. As 'intelligent' as humans supposedly are I am sure we would be aware of an uncreated moral- and the problem with this is the entire construction of any form of morality was conceptually discover, created, a forced/taught to others. So to say 'become aware of objective morality' is similar to religious folk telling other to become aware of god- and morality--just like god/religion--is a belief system created by humans that you are suggesting exists in reality. Morality, by definition, will always be subjective. There is objective necessity and reason which some may not be aware but not 'morality'.

--

(1) Morality is defined as: A particular system of values and principles of conduct, esp.one held by a specified person or society; (2)"person or society" is basically saying that it is up to the person or society to decide; (3) and if such a system of principles of ideas is up for decision then it is subjective; (4) it is illogical to extract objectivity from something that (by definition) entirely entails subjectivity (5) therefore, one cannot become of aware of objective morality seeing as how the entire idea of 'morality' (again, by definition) entails subjectivity.

Side: God exists.
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

....................................................................................................................................................

Side: God exists.
1 point

Killing someone isn't usually the right thing to do, but sometimes it is necessary. Regarding evolution, members of a species would normally be predated on by other species. Which was like a natural concept of eugenics: those who cannot adapt will die and not reproduce. Humans are in a unique situation and are able to question all this. Murder, I guess, isn't wrong. There are motives which are wrong: delusions like hatred, jealousy and greed, but I don't think the actual act of killing someone is wrong. Ideals of right and wrong can only be applied to what goes on in the mind, for these ideals are human, not natural.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
1 point

Yes yes

Side: God exists.
1 point

Yes yes

Side: God exists.
1 point

Yes yes

Side: God exists.
1 point

Objective morality does not exist, and consequentially no action is objectively wrong.

Subjective morality does exist, and it developed as an evolutionary mechanism to regulate interpersonal behavior within the species. Pro-moral social groupings of early humans had an advantage over non-moral groupings, and because the pro-moral instinct allowed these groups to survive more successfully morality was passed on evolutionarily despite its sometimes being detrimental to individual members of the species.

Side: Murder is not wrong.
1 point

If you ask me, evolution is a thing, not a debate

Evolution is what makes life possible, it allows organisms

to adapt to the environment as it changes, its responsible for huge diversity

and complicity of live on earth. Which not only provides organises with source

of food and healthy competition, it also gives us some truly awesome stuff to

marvel at. And even tho Evolution makes living thing different from one

another, it also shows us how we are all the same. All live, every single thing

that’s alive on earth today, can claim the same shared heritage. Having descended

from the very first microorganism, when life originated on this planet 3.8

million years ago.

There are people who will say that this is all random ( which it isn't ) and that this clumsy process could not be responsible for the majestic beauty of our world. And to them people I say well at least we can agree that our world is beautiful. There are 2 kinds of people in the world,

the people who are excited about the power and beauty of evolution and those

who don’t understand.

Side: Murder is not wrong.