CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
34
Yep Nope
Debate Score:53
Arguments:100
Total Votes:53
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yep (17)
 
 Nope (23)

Debate Creator

Starchild123(832) pic



The only way to have objective morality is through a god or gods?

Is the only way to have objective morality through a god or gods? Or is there another way we can have objective morality?

Yep

Side Score: 19
VS.

Nope

Side Score: 34
1 point

Only a god can remake the universe so that people feel the same way about everything.

Side: Yep
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

So... by that rationale there is no god, correct?

Side: Yep
ProLogos(2793) Clarified
1 point

What makes you think that?

Side: Yep
1 point

There are no objective morals in reality- only in an obscured/delusional sense. No one can even hint an objective moral- unless it was biblical, of course- for it can always be argued against based on an opposed system of moral conduct.

Before anyone says it, I know something can exist without anyone's knowledge of it; I then would argue: "What's more inclined to be rational?" "a system of objective conduct that one cannot even hint?" or, " a system of conduct that offers 100s of examples that necessitate subjectivity?"

Imo, subjective relativism seems to be the most compelling- morals are relative to that of an individual, therefore, whatever you believe is morally right cannot be argued against (at least by another subjective relativist), rather only your premises can be discussed/debated thus rendering your conclusion for your beliefs invalid/valid.

Side: Yep
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

There exists collective morality. It is comprised of the rules that people collectively accept as necessary in order to live together in peaceful cooperation. These rules come from someones mind subjectively and are adopted collectively by the group. People are not born with an understanding of these rules, but must learn them from members of the group. The subjective decision is each individual's choice to accept or reject these rules.

Here is my question:

What distinguishes collective morality/rules from objective morality/rules?

Side: Nope
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

Could this just be the same as cultural relativism? If so, the distinction rest in the fact that, amongst cultures/societies, not everyone views each others moral convictions as being accurate. Thus implying that it is subjective to ones (a cultures) belief(s).

Of course, with any moral value, collectiveness is likely to occur, but a collective moral doesn't imply any objective truths.

Mayans believed it was morally right to throw someone in their water hole for the gods as a sacrifice. All of them. Well, we know that couldn't have been morally right, as their gods are nonexistent (or perhaps not 0o).

Side: Yep
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

While there are collective moralities, there are also always deviations from and exceptions to that collective morality amongst individuals and between collectives. If morality were objective then there would be absolute homogeneity, but that is very simply not that case.

Side: Yep
Ronnoc(10) Clarified
1 point

Your viewpoint both bothered and intrigued me. "...morals are relative to that of an individual, therefore, whatever you believe is morally right cannot be argued against..." So, if someone were raised in a culture where rape and murder were common and not thought of as wrong, would you be capable of saying to them, "I think that is wrong, for me personally, but since you believe that those things are okay, I cannot argue against them."? That is a very slippery slope, isn't it?

Side: Yep
Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

I clarified that that is called "Subjective Relativism". I also said that if they give a good argument (preferably deductive) then they have rational reasons for their moral conviction. So I would only argue if their argument for "rape & murder" was invalid or unsound.

Basically, if they do give a sound argument, then I would have no problem with them condoning rape and murder- yes, I seriously mean this.

Side: Yep
1 point

God or gods is or are simply a mechanism for social control. If we have faith or belief in what we believe god or gods want of us then most of us will adopt such behaviours.

In one country they chop off the hand of thieves, in another the penalty for a woman who commits adultery is death. These countries have a god or gods and their laws are a manifestation out of their social beliefs which have been handed down for centuries and were developed from their religion be it through a god or gods however they are or were manifested.

That is their objective morality but it is not necessarily anyone else's.

Side: Yep
6 points

If there exists a god that had principles for right and wrong, how does that make the god's morality objective. Is it not still subjective morality because it is god's opinion?

Side: Nope

Precisely. Morals that come from a god are not objective morals, merely the subjective opinion of the god in question.

Some like to assert that there is only one god, and that is sufficient to render said gods subjective opinion as objective fact.

By that logic, if I'm the only person, then my opinion becomes fact, regardless of its actual veracity. Even if I'm not the only person, if I'm the first person to form an opinion on a subject (perhaps I'm the first person to taste a new recipe?), then said opinion is the objective fact until someone else forms a different opinion. No? Then the same No applies to gods.

An important distinction is that truly objective morals would apply equally to gods as they do to men. One could make an argument that there is no way to hold a god morally accountable, nor is there any way to resist a gods attempt to hold another morally accountable. If this is true, then the morals of a nation with a sufficiently strong military as to be effectively unassailable could be held as objective as well.

Side: Nope
Amarel(5669) Clarified
0 points

Well said. You have made the point that "god" does not qualify as the basis for an objective morality. Are you able or willing to argue what does qualify as the basis for objective morality?

Side: Yep
2 points

There IS no way to have objective morality. Objective morality is a myth.

Side: Nope

False, I don't go around stealing and murdering because I was taught by my parents and society that its wrong.

Side: Nope
1 point

Okay? Neither do I or many people I know or just in general so I don't know why you said that, unless you are saying that objective morality comes from your parents, then I guess that counts.

Side: Yep
animedude639(1575) Clarified
1 point

I'm not quite sure what your disputing here. If you agree that people who don't believe in a god(s) can be moral and don't commit crimes then you agree that you can have objective morality without god(s).

Side: Yep

Evolution is another possibility. See my reference for more in-depth explanation.

Supporting Evidence: ref (www.nytimes.com)
Side: Nope
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

Somewhat belated, but I am curious to know why you would consider evolutionary derived moralities to be objective moralities.

Side: Yep
MuckaMcCaw(1970) Clarified
2 points

I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the precept upon which morality is founded are objective, at least among "normally" functioning humans.

Side: Yep
1 point

No. Religion may have been the self-proclaimed authority on morality for many centuries but it’s far from it. Fortunately many people are becoming less and less inclined to seek moral guidance from religious teaching.

Moral Objectivism is not an exclusively religious philosophy, nor is it a supernatural concept requiring the existence of a god or gods. The scientific method, for example, could help us arrive at moral facts and it’s far more efficient than blindly accepting ancient texts or faith.

Side: Nope
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

Out of sheer curiosity, why do you think we should even call such scientifically derived guidelines "moral facts"? To me it is entirely unnecessary to so utterly redefine the word "morality" only to describe what we already have language to describe.

Side: Yep
Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

why do you think we should even call such scientifically derived guidelines "moral facts"?

If we observe something as an objective fact within the subject of morality then I’m not sure what else to call it at the present moment. What would you call it?

Is there any reason why you think we shouldn’t call such things “moral facts?”

To me it is entirely unnecessary to so utterly redefine the word "morality" only to describe what we already have language to describe.

I’m not sure what you mean here. I’m not redefining morality, just explaining what objective morality is to the OPer

Side: Yep
1 point

Why would anybody even want a system of "objective morality?" I much prefer a moality which changes and adapts to the times as it learns new information and gains new responsibilities as a result.

Side: Nope
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

If an objective morality did exist (which I do not think it does or can), there is no reason that it would have to be stagnant and unchanging with time. All "objective" signifies is that something exists independent of our conceiving of its existence.

Side: Yep
seanw666(40) Clarified
1 point

I know, I was merely stating that it is quite possible that there could exist an objective morality which we humans find repugnant, in which case, in my opinion, we would have good grounds to reject it. Furthermore, I would like to think that humans can figure out morality for themselves without it having to be there as a pre-determined system.

Side: Yep
Coldfire(1014) Clarified
1 point

I don't think it’s very practical to consider objective morality where it describes something that exists independent of our conceiving of its existence. I realize that this is seemingly what the theological community asserts about morality but the scientific communities’ use of the word objective would be to describe something which exists independent of personal opinion or bias.

Would you consider the merits of objective morality if you consider the word in this sense?

edited for grammar

Side: Yep
1 point

God is not required for there to be an objective morality. All that is required is an objective standard; something independent of perspective or opinion. Following is a brief explanation of how this might work:

Life and the living are compelled to sustain and continue itself/themselves. The natural mechanism of evolution has created ever more complex organisms to the point where higher cognition became possible. Eventually, evolution necessitated a large enough frontal lobe for complex symbolic reasoning. This symbolic reasoning coupled with the earlier development of social pressure based on conduct combined to become what we now subjectively feel as morality. Objective morality is simply the code of conduct that holds life as its standard. By “life” I mean basic and advanced survival. By “advanced survival” I mean increased quality.

This morality would be objective because it wouldn’t matter what you think is most conducive to protecting or enhancing life since certain things actually will and certain things actually won’t. Furthermore, its existence is independent of human conception. The standard for morality is life and the judge and creator over time is evolution. A hint at what an example of an objective moral might be is the moral prohibition of murder or unjustifiable killing. One can imagine how mass acceptance of murder as a moral act would degenerate the survivability of not only individual organisms, but eventually humans as we know them.

In summation, objective morality exists with life as the standard. It is shaped and altered over time by evolution. While everyone has subjective ideas about proper moral conduct, some of these ideas are conducive to life while others are not. That which best fits the objectively correct code of conduct will survive over time, with or without our awareness.

Side: Nope