Instigator / Pro
23
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Topic
#338
Morality Can Only Be Objective If God Exists
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
David
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
19
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Description
I want to begin by thanking MagicAintReal for agreeing to debate this topic with me. In this debate I will be defending the following proposition:
1. If objective moral facts exist, then God exists
2. Objective moral facts exist [not in dispute]
3. Therefore God exists
Definitions
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Objective: moral facts are true independent of human opinion, evolution, religious tradition, or culture.
God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, this debate is not about a specific religious tradition. I am not defending the Bible or the Qur'an.
Structure
1 - Opening arguments
2-3 Rebuttals
4. Conclusion
Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
As per my opponent's request Ethang5, Raltar, and Death23 cannot vote on the debate
Round 1
Pro
#1
I want to begin by saying how delighted I am to be debating you once again. After the flop of my last debate, I certainly hope I can do better. Magic and I were discussing via PM the definitions provided and we decided to amend the definition of objective. Objective is now defined as "Objective: moral facts are true independent of human opinion." With that said, let's begin1
----
P1: If objective moral facts exist, then God exists.
P2: Objective moral facts exist (not in dispute)
C: Therefore, God exists (from 1 and 2).
This is logically valid so if both premises are true the conclusion is inescapable. Premise 2 is not in dispute so therefore I only have to really prove P1.
1. Objective moral facts are infinite
By infinite I mean that they transcend time, culture, place, religious traditions, etc. These facts are always true whether or not we agree on it and no matter where we are in the universe. If we were to build a time machine and could travel back to the moment of the big bang, there will never be a time in which it would be morally permissible to torture babies for fun or to commit mass genocide. This means that evolution cannot account for ethics as it would necessarily imply that we can go back in time and find a point when x became morally permissible or when y became morally abhorrent.
2. Objective moral facts are commands
The statement "do not murder" is a command. These are duties that are incumbent on all of mankind to keep. Commands and communications must originate from an intelligent and competent mind In the words of Richard Taylor (1):
"A duty is something that is owed... But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as a duty in isolation.... the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone."
--Key question for con--
Who or what commanded us to not kill?
3. Free will exists
A logical necessity to objective moral facts is the need to account for free will. If free will does not exist then we cannot be held accountable for our actions. If a bridge collapses and kills people we can't hold the bridge accountable because it did not choose to fall. This is the second problem with atheism - atheism cannot account for free will. Indeed as Dan Wegner and Thalia Wheatley properly pointed out (2)
The experience of intentionally willing an action, they suggested, is often nothing more than a post hoc causal inference that our thoughts caused some behavior. The feeling itself, however, plays no causal role in producing that behavior. This could sometimes lead us to think we made a choice when we actually didn’t or think we made a different choice than we actually did.
Matt Slick also notes (3):
If your brain is hardwired and constrained by the physical laws, then it cannot act outside of those laws or outside the limits of the hardwiring. It is, in essence, caged in by the limits of physical properties and cannot break free of them.
--Key question for con--
How does atheism account for free will? If there is no free will, then you must claim that there are no objective moral facts, correct?
Conclusion: Objective moral facts must be rooted in natural law and consequently God
This is the logical conclusion of morality. Murder is wrong because we are created free and equal and created in the Image of God as Paul Copland points out (4):
We would not know goodness without God's endowing us with a moral constitution. We have rights, dignity, freedom, and responsibility because God has designed us this way. In this, we reflect God's moral goodness as His image-bearers.
Thus we conclude:
- Objective facts are infinite in nature;
- They are commands which can only be made by a law-giver;
- They necessitate free will
Con has a tall burden on him. He must provide an alternative framework in which objective moral facts can exist without a moral law-giver..
1. Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Pentice-Hall, 1985) 83
4, Copan, Paul, and William Lane Craig. Passionate Conviction: Contemporary Discourses on Christian Apologetics. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2007. 91
Con
#2
Intro
Thanks again for the debate Pro, and the pleasure's all mine.
I have to admit though, I was disappointed in your "flop" as well, mainly because I know you're capable of much more.
So here's to remedying that.
Pro had mentioned that we agreed to the definition of objective being what Pro posted first round, and that is correct.
"Objective: moral facts are true independent of human opinion."
I'd also like to point out that we agreed to the definition of "morality" being:
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior towards others.
If we're not talking about behavior towards others and just isolated actions/behavior, we're not talking about morality, so this has to be accepted to continue.
*Resolution*
The resolution has Pro affirming that morality can only be objective if god exists, so if there are any other ways morality can be objective without requiring god's existence, then the resolution is negated.
As Con I need to show that behaviors towards others can be assessed and determined to be objectively morally right or wrong without the existence of god.
Let's do it.
*Morality*
The principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong ways in which one acts or conducts oneself towards others can be reduced to principles concerning the distinction between beneficial and detrimental actions with respects to humans' and to some extent other animals' homeostasis.
Any action that one could consider to be moral can be weighed by whether or not that action leads to the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting.
Homeostasis is just an organism's maintenance of internal balance when dealing with external changes.
I'm trying to point out that we, those who behave towards others, are necessarily part of the "external changes" those others are dealing with in their attempt to maintain their homeostasis.
*Objectivity*
As long as the standard we use to judge morally right and wrong is independent of human opinion, it can be objective, and I will argue that moral values are facts independent of both human opinion and god's existence; these objective facts are the standard by which we determine right and wrong behavior towards others.
*Morality Can Be Objective*
I argue that right and wrong behavior is necessarily contingent on the homeostasis of the humans and conscious animals, especially those close to us, towards whom we behave.
I define conscious animals as those that contain the proper neuronal substrates for consciousness and intention.
Let's take, for example, health.
There may be upwards of a thousand different ways for people to be healthy or commit healthy actions, but the distinction between ingesting poison and ingesting nutrition is about the clearest distinction between healthy and unhealthy we can make; the distinction is objective because of the objective facts of health, chemistry, and the impacts on homeostasis.
Is there something objectively unhealthy about ingesting poison?
Who are we to say that someone who enjoys vomiting all of the time from ingesting poison has something nutritionally wrong with them?
It might be that someone enjoys chronically vomiting corrosive hydrochloric stomach acid from ingesting known poisons.
Is there something objectively unhealthy about that?
Is there something nutritionally wrong with that person?
I'm saying, yes, of course, and thanks to our understood body of facts about health and the maintenance of homeostasis, we can make this assessment of healthy and unhealthy objectively, nutritionally right and wrong, despite rare exceptions of those who may enjoy vomiting ingested poison chronically.
For example, if your child had been running around for hours, and, as a result, had become dehydrated, it would be a perfectly healthy behavior to administer water (H2O) to them, because this action would lead to their homeostasis. This would be objectively regarded as a healthy, or a nutritionally beneficial/good action.
Now imagine that instead of H2O, you decided to administer H2O2, the only difference between the two being one more little oxygen atom.
Well, since hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a known poison, this would objectively NOT be the healthiest/nutritionally good behavior to hydrate your child.
Why would we think that morality is somehow immune to this objectivity?
Any action that one could consider to be moral can be weighed by whether or not that action leads to or away from the homeostasis of those towards whom we are behaving.
We further determine "right" and "wrong" actions towards others with facts about the homeostasis of the others towards whom we are acting, like administering H2O is perfectly conducive to hydrating your child, while administering a seemingly similar compound, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), is not only detrimental, it flies in the face of objective, positive health/homeostatic maintenance BECAUSE of the facts of chemistry, nutrition, and health.
*Conclusion*
Homeostasis exists in opposition to suffering and maltreatment, things associated with actions of immorality, and is an objective way to measure whether or not an action is moral i.e. does it lead to homeostasis?
Therefore, objectively, the distinction between "right" and "wrong" behavior towards others is determined by facts of homeostasis, and these facts inform our values sans human opinion.
The actions that objectively lead toward the homeostasis of those towards whom we are behaving are MORE MORAL than the actions that lead away from the homeostasis of those towards whom we are behaving.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con's moral framework seems to be a mixture of the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP hereafter) with his own stuff. His framework has quite a few holes in it.
Understanding the NAP
The Mises Institute defines the NAP as "an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance." (1)
This is basically what con is talking about in his theory of homeostasis. Con's principle of framework contains moral paradoxes, many of which are undesirable.
Moral Paradoxes
1. Raping a comatose person
Is it morally wrong to rape a comatose person if no physical or emotional harm is suffered and the person is unaware of what occurred? Under your framework, the answer will be no. It does not harm the person nor does it harm the homeostasis between the two people.
2. Is driving immoral?
Driving is a huge source of air pollutions worldwide and this pollution and ultimately is leading to catastrophic global warming (2). Under the homeostasis theory, driving (and other activities like smoking) are a major source of harm and a major source of decreased homeostasis between humans and non-human beings. FURTHERMORE all forms of pollution from industrialization and farming become immoral. Thus we are committing hundreds of immoral acts each day when we drive to work, use public transportation, purchase goods made from industrialization, and
3. Who's harm is it anyway?
Imagine Jack wants to rape Jill. Jill would be harmed by being raped and Jack is being harmed (in some way or in his own mind) by not raping Jill. Who's homeostasis is more important?
Con's Framework Applies to All Life
Understanding the NAP
The Mises Institute defines the NAP as "an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance." (1)
This is basically what con is talking about in his theory of homeostasis. Con's principle of framework contains moral paradoxes, many of which are undesirable.
Moral Paradoxes
1. Raping a comatose person
Is it morally wrong to rape a comatose person if no physical or emotional harm is suffered and the person is unaware of what occurred? Under your framework, the answer will be no. It does not harm the person nor does it harm the homeostasis between the two people.
2. Is driving immoral?
Driving is a huge source of air pollutions worldwide and this pollution and ultimately is leading to catastrophic global warming (2). Under the homeostasis theory, driving (and other activities like smoking) are a major source of harm and a major source of decreased homeostasis between humans and non-human beings. FURTHERMORE all forms of pollution from industrialization and farming become immoral. Thus we are committing hundreds of immoral acts each day when we drive to work, use public transportation, purchase goods made from industrialization, and
3. Who's harm is it anyway?
Imagine Jack wants to rape Jill. Jill would be harmed by being raped and Jack is being harmed (in some way or in his own mind) by not raping Jill. Who's homeostasis is more important?
Con's Framework Applies to All Life
Because all forms of life experience homeostasis from the single-celled organisms to humans, this framework and criteria based on homeostasis must be appleid to all of life. Indeed con concedes, at least in part, to this point:
The principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong ways in which one acts or conducts oneself towards others can be reduced to principles concerning the distinction between beneficial and detrimental actions with respects to humans' and to some extent other animals' homeostasis.Any action that one could consider to be moral can be weighed by whether or not that action leads to the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting.
But why should it stop with humans and other animals? And to what extent does that stop? In such a framework eating a vegetable would reduce that plant's homeostasis and thus it would be immoral for me to eat that vegetable. That's absurd!
Conclusion
Con's framework inherently leads to moral paradoxes which are undesirable. His framework also necessarily applies to all forms of life from the simple celled organism to the most complex organisms. His framework to judge objective moral facts is absurd and should be rejected.
Sources
1. https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
2. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health#.W_S-aC2ZMUs
Con's framework inherently leads to moral paradoxes which are undesirable. His framework also necessarily applies to all forms of life from the simple celled organism to the most complex organisms. His framework to judge objective moral facts is absurd and should be rejected.
1. https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
2. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health#.W_S-aC2ZMUs
Con
#4
Rebuttals
Thanks for that Pro.
I'd also like to warn readers that I'm going to have to get a little dirty to respond to the questions posed by Pro.
Enjoy.
*Pro's Proposition*
Pro claims:
"P1: If objective moral facts exist, then God exists."
My response:
I reject P1 because objective moral facts are based on our assessments of the homeostasis of those towards whom we behave, and the universe wasn't created by god or otherwise, therefore there was no creator of a universe that wasn't created.
Creation is a temporal concept.
Time originated at the universe's origin.
A temporal process could not have occurred without time having originated.
No universe, no time, no temporal processes like creation.
creation - the process of bringing something into existence.
process - a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
series - a number of events of a related kind coming one after another.
after - in the time following an event.
There is no creator of a universe that wasn't created, yet homeostasis existing in opposition to suffering and maltreatment is an objective fact, so P1 is rejected.
Pro adds:
"Objective moral facts are infinite, I mean that they transcend time, culture, place, religious traditions"
My response:
I'll agree that objective moral facts transcend religious traditions, more accurately, exist in opposition to many religious traditions, but the idea of transcending time gets to a quantum mechanical realm not needed in this debate.
I argue moral facts are contingent on physical facts, and that these physical facts are necessarily spatio-temporal thus do not transcend spacetime and are not infinite.
Pro asks:
"Who or what commanded us to not kill?"
My response:
It's not a command, my authority-prone brother.
Striving for the net homeostasis of everyone leads to the conclusion to not kill and to let the society's homeostasis forever maintain.
No one commands it; organisms need it.
*NAP*
Pro reckons:
"Con's moral framework seems to be a mixture of the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP hereafter) with his own stuff. His framework has quite a few holes in it."
My response:
Nope.
While it's nice to know how my framework "seems" to Pro, Pro's wrong.
I'm using something called the homeostatic principle not the NAP.
If anything, my homeostatic principle is likened to the harm principle not the NAP.
By Pro assuming I was advocating for a particular principle, he ended up refuting a straw man in the NAP.
The homeostatic principle allows for aggression when the net homeostasis of those attempting to maintain everyone's homeostasis is preserved by the aggression.
Also if aggression were to eliminate a potential detriment to the homeostasis of those attempting to maintain everyone's homeostasis, i.e. self defense, then aggression is fine.
Pro claims:
"Con's principle of framework contains moral paradoxes, many of which are undesirable."
My response:
Just to be clear, I'm not using the NAP, just my homeostatic principle, so if you thought the moral paradoxes of the NAP were associated with my homeostatic principle, you were mistaken; we should call it the NOPE hereafter.
But, Pro has some questions for me.
*Pro's Moral Questions*
Pro asks:
"Is it morally wrong to rape a comatose person if no physical or emotional harm is suffered and the person is unaware of what occurred? Under your framework, the answer will be no. It does not harm the person nor does it harm the homeostasis between the two people."
My response:
To be clear, Pro said "no physical harm is suffered."
A comatose person is not suffering any physical harm, because they're not enduring pain, so they're not suffering anything.
So this act could still cause physical trauma, without the comatose "suffering" physical harm.
Humans, on the most basic cellular level must maintain homeostasis, and our bodies do a wonderful job of regulating when there's temperature changes, danger stimulus, and minor trauma.
Sexual intercourse, consensual or not, actually creates minor trauma to the skin/muscles of the vagina, the skin/muscles of the penis, the inside of the anus, and the inside of the mouth.
When we're consenting to the sexual act, our bodies are pumping endorphins to regulate our pain from these behaviors, creating arousal fluids that serve as lubricants to reduce more trauma, and raising our blood pressure to make the minor trauma seem exciting and pleasurable.
This is our body trying to maintain homeostasis from minor sexual trauma.
But by committing sexual acts like the one Pro mentions on someone who is not consenting and is medically comatose, the physical trauma is necessarily magnified without any arousal fluids, the physical trauma fails to be experienced pleasurably without any endorphins, and this act necessarily bypasses the comatose person's ability to maintain their homeostasis during sex.
Since raping a comatose person doesn't afford them the ability to maintain their homeostasis from the sexual act, it is most certainly immoral, even if you imagine that "there's no physical harm suffered."
There's necessarily still minor trauma from sexual acts, consensual or not.
Also, the person committing the act, before going in to rape the comatose person, should consider the potential detriment to the homeostasis of the person toward whom they are acting.
Giving your child a diluted from of hydrogen peroxide to hydrate them might not noticeably hurt them, but choosing the hydrogen peroxide over the H2O before hydrating your child is certainly a potential detriment to the child's homeostasis, no?
Pro asks:
"Is driving immoral?"
My response:
So, you have to treat it like opportunity cost, only in this case opportunity homeostasis.
We all are using cars to ease our lives and daily stresses, making it easier for our bodies to maintain homeostasis given our daily routines and requirements.
The net detriment of not having cars to make our lives work and easily maintain our homeostasis far out weighs the detriment of diffused carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
Yes the earth is heating up because of it, and yes, this is a potential detriment to our homeostasis, but again, if my baby doesn't get to day care tomorrow, I don't go to work, my wife doesn't go to work, and we can't afford to feed our children or pay our mortgage because our jobs don't like us not showing up, then the detriment to my and my family's homeostasis becomes much more salient than a potential detriment from diffused carbon compounds.
So driving is not immoral, because of the homeostasis it helps to maintain.
It's also not a behavior towards others, so it's not really a moral or immoral action.
Pro continues:
"FURTHERMORE all forms of pollution from industrialization and farming become immoral."
My response:
Again, these are not actions toward others, but the net detriment to the homeostasis of lives without readily available food more immediately outweighs the net detriment to the homeostasis of the lives living with the progressive pollution and subsequent global climate impact of farming and industry as a whole.
There's pollution, but they're eating food every day, and this helps maintain homeostasis more than not having food readily available.
Pro asks about harm:
"Who's harm is it anyway?...Imagine Jack wants to rape Jill. Jill would be harmed by being raped and Jack is being harmed (in some way or in his own mind) by not raping Jill. Who's homeostasis is more important?"
My response:
When you take biology, the first thing they teach you is that in order for a cellular organism to maintain homeostasis, it's gotta rape someone.
Wait how is Jack being harmed in this example?
This was a weird example, no?
Jack doesn't need to completely dominate, over power, and go against the consent of someone to maintain homeostasis, so he is not harmed at all in this case.
Ugh.
That was gross to think he was harmed by not getting to rape someone...ugh again.
Pro supposes:
"Con's framework applies to all life because all forms of life experience homeostasis from the single-celled organisms to humans...indeed con concedes, at least in part, to this point:...but why should it stop with humans and other animals?"
My response:
This speaks to the homeostatic principle's objectivity, as it is clearly independent of human opinion given that Con concedes it applies to all life.
Why should it stop with humans and other animals?
The way we weigh whether or not an animal's homeostasis should be considered actually has a lot to do with how that animal helps to maintain our own homeostasis.
Pets reduce our stress, many animals help the disabled, and many humans feel emotional, dopamine rushes with animals who can participate in the heights of consciousness reached by humans.
That is why in the homeostatic principle, humans and many non-human animals that contain the proper neuronal substrates for consciousness and intention are considered as a component in the net homeostasis of everyone.
Conclusion
1. The universe wasn't created, so there is no creator of the universe.
2. Objective moral facts exist by considering homeostasis, not the NAP.
3. All actions Pro would consider to be moral can be reduced to the homeostatic principle.
Pro?
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you for your reply. I will begin by defending my arguments in this round and then defending my rebuttals.
=== My Case ===
Con begins by attacking P1 by arguing against God's existence. As this is really not a debate for that, I'm going to ignore the K. If I can successfully prove P1, then his arguments are rebutted as the conclusion necessarily follows.
(1) OMFs are Infinite
Con concedes my point that these facts transcends human boundaries and religious customs. When we say that something is transcendent we mean that they are not the product of any physical universe because if the physical universe were to disappear, these facts would still be true. If there were no physical universe, 2+2 will always be 4. If the universe did not exist, torturing babies for fun will still be an immoral act. A fact that is absolute or objective are always true everywhere and anywhere and thus not dependent on human minds. (1)
(2) OMFs are commands
The word command means "to direct authoritatively." (2) "Do not kill" and "do not torture babies for fun" certainly directs authoritatively. These commands must come from an intelligent mind. Homeostasis cannot command us to not kill and to not torture babies for fun.
From an evolutionary point of view, the only thing that matters is me, myself, and I. Animals kill and fight each other over food and to pass on their genes to the next generation. Evolution and homeostasis is necessarily concerned with the individual versus the community. It's survival of the fittest.
(3) Free will exists
Second, con completely drops my point on free will. He necessarily concedes that free will exists. I gave several arguments why an atheistic world view cannot account for free will. Please extend across the board.
=== Con's Case ===
Con's framework is a hyper deontological framework and leaves no room for error. His response to the moral paradox reeks of moving the goalpost. His framework can be summarized as this:
P1: Any action that harms homeostasis is immoral.
P2: Action X harms homeostasis.
C: Therefore, action X is immoral.
Similarly
P1: Any action that harms homeostasis is immoral.
P2: Action X does not harm homeostasis
C: Therefore, action X is not immoral.
Let's begin by looking at my paradoxes.
(1) Raping a comatose person
Con's reply is essentially moving the goalpost! By his own reasoning, any form of sexual intercourse harms homeostasis and is thus immoral because it necessarily means that some physical trauma is given. But con ignores the hypothetical framework. In a hypothetical framework that I showed, there is no physical harm and thus no physical trauma.
Furthermore, if someone were to rape a comatose person by oral sex or molestation, there definitely is no physical trauma. So thus the syllogism is
P1: Any action that harms homeostasis is immoral.
P2: Raping a comatose patient does not harm homeostasis
C: Therefore, raping a comatose patient is not immoral.
(2) Driving and Pollution
By con's own admission when we judge homeostasis we necessarily have to consider both the current state of homeostasis and the long term state of homeostasis. Climate change is a significant problem and that's something both myself and my opponent agree upon. The statistics are quite alarming. NASA provides the following predictions for North America alone (3):
Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.
Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.
Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.
Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.
Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.
Climate change leads to an increased frequency of violent phenomena and natural disasters. This will result in the repeated management of crises with serious deaths and injuries. This will also lead to the emergence of epidemics and an increase in the flow of patients requiring emergency services. Moreover, climate change will be responsible for a change in the epidemiology of pathologies usually encountered in emergency health settings. It will also be responsible for the emergence of new diseases and the re-emergence of extinct diseases. Emergency departments should anticipate the increase in consultations because of climate changes and acute variations in temperature. Educational institutions and health and human service organizations must commit to increasing access to disaster simulation-based education and exercises, in an effort to enhance disaster preparedness of emergency caregivers.
Certainly the long term harms are outweighed by the short term benefits.
P1: Any action that harms homeostasis is immoral.
P2: Driving cars and polluting the environment harm homeostasis
C: Therefore, Driving cars and polluting is immoral.
(3) Who's harm
I didn't really explain this point well enough and it's a bit confusing so I will just drop this point.
Conclusions
1. Con continues to move the goalpost in his framework.
2. Con's framework is unworkable
3. Free will cannot exist in an atheistic worldview.
Sources
4. Ghazali, Daniel Aiham et al. “Climate Change Impacts on Disaster and
Emergency Medicine Focusing on Mitigation Disruptive Effects: an
International Perspective” International journal of environmental research and public health vol. 15,7 1379. 1 Jul. 2018, doi:10.3390/ijerph15071379
Thank you. Please vote pro.
Con
#6
More Rebuttals
Thanks for that Pro.
I realize that this round and the round previous were designated for rebuttals and that the last round was designated for conclusions, but since I'm going to refute something I wanted Pro to respond to, I would not mind if Pro used a little of their last round to respond to my rebuttals and I request voters to not hit Pro with a conduct point for doing it.
It's up to Pro either way, but I figured I'd put that out there.
*Free Will*
After Pro provided sources that mention sometimes we think we've made a choice when we actually haven't and that our thoughts and actions are limited by physical laws inherent in our hard-wiring, Pro asks me a question:
Pro asks:
How does atheism account for free will? If there is no free will, then you must claim that there are no objective moral facts, correct?
My response:
I agree with your sources to the extent that our hard-wiring is limited by the laws of physics, the facts of physiology, and the functions of our neurology.
However, within these limits are a range of possible actions, choices, and intentions.
Yes, how I choose is bound by laws, but within the domain of those laws are a range of intentional possibilities, so what I choose is freely willed by me and my assessments of external stimuli.
I may have to use neurological substrates that all behave within the domain of physical laws (how), but recruiting and combining these substrates to express the intentions of my internal state to then choose to commit an action (what) within that domain of physical laws is inherently freely willed.
How do I know free will exists?
Because I freely choose to believe so.
But Pro had asked, how atheism accounts for free will.
I know that many prominent atheists claim free will does not exist...frankly I don't care what they think, but as someone who doesn't buy the god claim, I actually think there's enough evidence to indicate we have the neuro-anatomical wherewithal to freely express our internal states by intending our actions.
I would say that while there are essentially 4 elements for organic compounds Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, which necessarily limits the chemical fertility of organic compounds with respects to all of the other elements, the range of organic compounds that can be created are vast, extremely variant, randomized, and spontaneous.
These are the compounds that make up our neurons, and it is with our neurology we utilize our free will.
"Here we use an ultrasensitive optical microscopy technique to directly monitor the formation and dynamics of self-replicating supramolecular structures at the single-particle level."
So, since organic compounds, even on the molecular and particle level, can spontaneously, randomly, and with great variance self-replicate within such a limited set of elements and restrictive laws of chemistry and physics, humans and other conscious animals (defined 1st round) composed of these dynamic self-replicating compounds, though limited by their physiology and restricted by their hard-wiring, are neurological creatures that can still demonstrate self-generated intention, consciousness, and free will expressing their internal states, all well within their limited domain of physical and anatomical laws.
The limits of the laws of physics do not negate free will.
Pro adds:
"He necessarily concedes that free will exists. I gave several arguments why an atheistic world view cannot account for free will."
My response:
Yes free will exists, and being an atheist is irrelevant to coming to this conclusion.
Whether or not I buy the god claim doesn't indicate whether or not I can account for free will.
Whether or not I buy the god claim doesn't indicate whether or not I can account for free will.
*God's Existence*
I had pointed out that the universe wasn't created, because it's not enough for me to show an objective moral framework like the homeostatic principle without showing how god is excluded from that.
Pro could easily have just said, "Ok, I agree that the homeostatic principle is objective morality, but god still exists behind it, so the resolution is still affirmed."
Me merely showing an objective morality wouldn't negate "Morality can only be objective if god exists," it would just show morality can be objective.
Pro mentions:
"Con begins by attacking P1 by arguing against God's existence."
My response:
Yeah, because if P1 is unsound, Pro's goose is cooked; that's the whole resolution.
I basically spent my early case affirming the "morality can be objective" part of the resolution, and I'm using the rebuttals to knock down the "only if god exists" part of the resolution.
Pro continues:
"As this is really not a debate for that, I'm going to ignore the K."
My response:
I mean I'm challenging the existence of the defined god in a debate where I'm Con and have to negate god's exclusive existence with respects to an objective moral framework.
It's not enough to say, "god doesn't control homeostasis, vote Con."
I guess I'm challenging an assumption in the definitions, but not an assumption in the resolution, so I'm not sure where that falls on the Kritik scale.
Pro is intending to drop my argument about how the universe was not created, therefore a creator of the universe, god in this debate, does not exist.
I'm saying that this proves the objective homeostatic principle doesn't need god.
*OMF (Objective Moral Facts)*
Pro keeps bangin' the old "objective moral facts must be infinite" drum the whole debate, but nothing about the term objective, being independent of human opinion, mentions being infinite...nothing.
Pro supposes:
"If the universe did not exist, torturing babies for fun will still be an immoral act."
My response:
If the universe did not exist, there wouldn't be babies or others to commit the immoral act.
Pro also says:
"Homeostasis cannot command us to not kill and to not torture babies for fun. From an evolutionary point of view, the only thing that matters is me, myself, and I."
My response:
Homeostasis is a standard, not an authority, because it exists in opposition to suffering and maltreatment.
By striving for this standard we would not kill or torture babies because the clear detriment to those people's homeostasis.
Also, from an evolutionary point of view, being social mammals with a functioning, homeostatic society helped evolve the human species to better hunt, more quickly construct shelter, and increase the overall security of the self and the society.
*Raping a Comatose Person*
I pointed out that what makes sex an enjoyable, moral experience is that the minor sexual trauma received from sexual acts is mitigated and turned into pleasure via homeostasis, so committing sexual acts that were not consented to necessarily bypasses this homeostasis.
Pro says:
"By [Con's] own reasoning, any form of sexual intercourse harms homeostasis and is thus immoral because it necessarily means that some physical trauma is given. But con ignores the hypothetical framework. In a hypothetical framework that I showed, there is no physical harm and thus no physical trauma."
My response:
Consensual sex affords people arousal fluids to mitigate trauma and increase pleasure, so it's not immoral.
Even if there's not physical trauma, which anatomically seems impossible, there is still the bypassing of one's ability to maintain homeostasis during sexual acts.
Our human bodies regulate during sex, and someone deliberately bypassing that attempt to maintain homeostasis is immoral.
Even if there's not physical trauma, which anatomically seems impossible, there is still the bypassing of one's ability to maintain homeostasis during sexual acts.
Our human bodies regulate during sex, and someone deliberately bypassing that attempt to maintain homeostasis is immoral.
Pro adds:
"Furthermore, if someone were to rape a comatose person by oral sex or molestation, there definitely is no physical trauma."
My response:
Pro, you seem to know a lot about this...just kidding, but you're wrong.
The bacteria in your mouth can be left in genitalia, and any touching can lead to abrasions and infections on thin skin like that of the anus or genitalia.
*Pollution*
I had mentioned the immediate detriment to my and my family's homeostasis were we to ditch our cars and buses.
Pro responds:
"Certainly the long term harms are outweighed by the short term benefits."
My response:
Yes, I already agreed that carbon emissions are exacerbating the climate crisis and that's a huge deal, but it's in no way more immediately detrimental to homeostasis than say refusing to rush a person to the hospital in a gassed up ambulance, or removing the gas powered generators from homes in freezing temperatures, or, as I mentioned earlier, getting to my job so I can live and maintain my homeostasis.
*Homeostatic Principle*
Pro ends up falsely representing what I've stated about the homeostatic principle.
Pro strawmans my argument:
"Any action that harms homeostasis is immoral."
My response:
I had said that actions that lead toward the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting are considered more moral than those actions that don't.
I never said ANY actions.
I never said ANY actions.
The rest of his pollution conclusion can be rejected, because P1 is not sound.
*Questions for Pro*
1. Can you name a moral action that's not reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom the action is being done?
2. Why would we need god to determine someone's homeostasis?
2. Why would we need god to determine someone's homeostasis?
Round 4
Pro
#7
I want to thank con for a fantastic debate. This is honestly one of my favorite debates of all time.
I. On the Debate
The resolution states that morality can only be objective if God exists. For con to win, he had to provide a viable objective moral framework that can exist without God. For me to win, I had to show that objective moral facts are dependent on God. There are several important points that he has dropped or failed to adequately respond to.
First, if objective moral facts exist, the free will must exist. Objective moral facts exist. Therefore free will must exist. This is agreed upon by con, but he has failed to provide a framework in how atheism accounts for free will. Simply choosing to believe in free will is a non answer. If there is no free will, then one cannot simply choose whether or not to believe in free will! Con's answer is effectively a cop out.
It has been shown in the moral paradox issues that con's framework leaves a lot to be desired. Con's framework has us committing hundreds of immoralities each day by heading to work and polluting the environment. There is always a short-term long-term evaluation in determining homeostasis. Con's answer is a cop out. The long term harms outweigh the short term benefits. This is something that con concedes to. However, raping a comatose person is perfectly moral in his worldview. Con has been consistently moving the goalpost on this important issue. On a cellular level, cells do not care if you are finding pleasure in an act that causes physical trauma. People enjoy being chocked during sex, but it certainly harms the cells and harms homeostasis regardless if it feels good.
Con's hyper-deontological framework must apply towards all life because all life experiences homeostasis. Whenever we eat a vegetable or a fruit, their homeostasis is being harmed even for our benefit. A moral framework must allow for some exploitation of the environment for our overall benefit; however, con's framework doesn't allow for any exploitation of the environment because all pollution necessarily leads to long term homeostasis harms, a point he failed to rebut in the last round.
So what are objective moral facts? In the God-centered framework, objective moral facts transcend human boundaries and necessarily transcend the homeostasis of the cells.
Objective moral facts must come from a transcendent mind. This mind is called God.
II. Conclusion
I thank con for this incredible debate. I urge a vote for pro. Thank you and good night.
Con
#8
Conclusion
I would also like to extend a thanks to Pro for a wonderful debate, and I would also like to say how much I respect Pro as a debater and member of this site, because he is an honest person and active contributor.
Thanks again.
Resolution
Pro attempted to show that morality can only be objective if god exists, and well, there's a lot that Pro never addressed with respects to my rebuttals.
I showed not only that morality can be objective via the homeostatic principle, but also that there is no need for god's existence to work towards that standard of maintaining homeostasis.
Since god was agreed to be the creator and ruler of the universe, and this creator is what must exist for morality to be objective, then without Pro refuting that the homeostatic principle is an objective way to determine morality and without Pro refuting that the universe wasn't created therefore there was no creator, one must vote Con, because the resolution is directly negated.
Moral objectivity, yes.
God, no.
Clean Up
There were various items that were brought up and I feel they need to be addressed in a conclusive kind of way so as not to sway from the rules that this is designated as a conclusion round.
Morality is Reducible to Homeostasis
In round 1, I claimed that all moral actions can be reduced to homeostasis.
Nothin' from Pro.
In round 2, I concluded my round with a direct shot at Pro, "All actions Pro would consider to be moral can be reduced to the homeostatic principle."
Pro had NOT ONE example of a moral (not a series of immoral situations like comatose rape) action that wasn't reducible to homeostasis.
Search the debate for a moral action that Pro provided where Pro refuted that it could be reduced to homeostasis.
In round 3, I even asked Pro to use his conclusion round to respond to me and I directly asked:
"Can you name a moral action that's not reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom the action is being done?"
Nothin' from Pro.
Morality is reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom we act, because Pro dropped it.
The Homeostatic Principle Does Not Require God
Since Pro purposefully dropped the "no time, no creation, no creator" argument, one must accept that the universe was not created because of the temporal inadequacies of such an event.
Then one must also accept that, per the agreed to definitions of god in this debate, that a creator of a universe that wasn't created is not necessary for one to strive to maintain the homeostasis of those others toward whom one is acting.
Free Will
Look, we both agree with free will, even though some atheists find physics to restrictive to allow for free will.
I pointed out that, in the limited domain of the laws of physics and the facts of anatomy, there are a range of intentional actions that we can accurately use to express our internal states.
Also, I hope everyone liked my tongue-in-cheek joke last round:
"How do I know free will exists?...Because I freely choose to believe so."
I was trying to make a self-affirming point, in that, if I were to freely choose to believe in free will, that would alone prove that free will exists...
I was trying to make a self-affirming point, in that, if I were to freely choose to believe in free will, that would alone prove that free will exists...
No?
Ok, Pro didn't seem to understand where I was going with that, but I wanted to make that clear.
Pro's Pollution
I had mentioned that driving cars and polluting the air isn't an action towards someone else.
It's more of a cumulative product of multiple, varying behaviors, not directed at anyone really.
To me, this is not related to morality because it is not an action toward others.
I pointed it out and Pro dropped it.
Salutations
Thanks again for the debate, Pro, may you and your loved ones maintain homeostasis while remembering that the universe wasn't created.
Vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The reason I am not giving either side sources is that while Con only uses his for providing definitions of things, Pro only uses his to credit others for theories... Which is basically saying that neither side actually used sources to reference facts or give validity to put-forth statistics or any such thing. You may think that Con used sources better but he was only clarifying points and expanding on his rant, he was not actually proving anything correct in and of itself that is key to the case. I will explain why in later stages.
Pro wins the debate because Con never ever, not even hinting at it, explains what is the reason for which we should have homeostasis as the basis of morality. On top of that, Pro explicitly causes Con to fail via encouraging Con time and time again to fall flat by pointing out how even eating vegetables can be (and is) evil under Con's regime. This means that Con's moral framework is proved to be ridiculous and that it's then up to Con to no longer be able to say 'well I'm obviously giving a reasonable morality system' but now has to explain why the ridiculousness of it is justified by a supreme basis other than God. Con is constantly on a backfoot as the only way to win this debate as Con is to break rule 6, meaning this was an autoloss trap from the get-go that Con fell into.
Without a supreme, unquestionable and insurmountably intelligent entity being the source of morality, there is ALWAYS the flaw of the source of morality being taken into question as means to negate said morality system altogether. The only way to overcome this is to prove your system to be subjectively less ridiculous and more overall sensible a moral system than the opponent's. The issue here is that this debate is angled such that the only way for Con to win would be to Kritik from the angle that 'only' is refuted since even with God the morality would be subjective to all involved.
Con keeps reexplaining how, if we assume irrationally that homeostasis is a valid objective foundation for moral framework, that we then can have objective morality without God and keeps framing his argument as 'this can work' and not 'this does work and is objectively the right and wrong thing to do without us subjectively assuming that death or ending homeostasis is inherently evil or wrong'.
Because of this, Con could not ever meet his BoP. Con didn't actually fail due to lack of skill, he had no way to succeed in the first place.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Wow, what an intense debate! And these intense votes, I don't know if I can top those. But I will try.
-RELIABLE SOURCES-
Con used Biology Online, the NLM, Cambridge University, and Oxford Dictionary to support Con's points of what homeostasis is, why H2O2 is poisonous, how and why there's consciousness to consider in Con's case, and definitions that negate the god in the resolution respectively. All of the sources are credible upon me checking them and solidly substantiate Con's case and rebuttals particularly on those points I mentioned. Pro used A scientific American Blog, CARM.org which is an apologist website, Union of Concerned Scientists, a wiki page about the NAP, merriam webster, NASA, and 3 books to show a mismatch with what we think is our choice and what we actually choose, that atheism cannot account for free will, that driving cars is causing climate change, that Con's case is like the NAP, a definition for command, more climate change data, and various faith-based arguments respectively. The problem with Pro's sources is that the CARM website lacks any real credentials or reliability and upon reading is extremely biased and opinionated, and since Pro used this to show that an atheist cannot explain free will and Con did explain free will, I have to take an actual atheist's example of how free will works over a clearly anti-atheist website which also shows this site's lack of reliability on the matter of atheistic free will. Pro also sourced wikipedia for the NAP and as Con clearly states later, the NAP is irrelevant to Con's case, so Pro ends up using another source that didn't go to any length to chip away at Con's case, which was the intent of the source. Also, while I do find the union of concerned scientists and NASA reliable sources, Pro used these to show an activity that Con pointed out was not really moral or immoral because it didn't involve behaving towards others, so while Pro was trying to come up with a morality example to present to Con, Pro used his sources to substantiate a moot point unrelated to the resolution of morality. Since some of Pro's sources were questionable and didn't exactly substantiate Pro's case or rebuttals, Con's sources reign supreme for their credibility and effectiveness in the debate.
-ARGUMENTS-
Pro has to show two things.
1. Morality can be objective.
2. Objective morality necessitates god's existence.
#1 Is clearly agreed to by both debaters, it's just that Pro thinks morality is based on god's commands and Con thinks morality is based on the "homeostatic principle."
#2 Is not substantiated by Pro but vigorously challenged by Con.
The god in this debate is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe, and as far as I see it, nothing in Pro's entire debate mentions the universe, how it was created or what it was created by. I can't tell that god exists or how god's existence is related to objective morality from anything Pro posts at all, and Con challenged that the universe was not created to which Pro said "I'm going to ignore the K." The argument is not a K, it's a direct attack on one of the burdens of Pro, to show that god must exist for objective morality to exist, and since god is the creator of the universe and Con pointed out that the universe was not created so there was not a creator of the universe and Pro clearly states he's ignoring it and both debaters agree that objective morality exists, I have to accept that the resolution is dead here for Pro.
Also it seems Con went to great lengths to ask Pro to name moral actions not reducible to the homeostatic principle, and Pro failed to do this the entire debate. It makes me have to believe that all moral actions are reducible to the homeostatic principle and since Pro only talks about immoral actions, I have to take from this debate the only real moral action mentioned which I think was giving your child water instead of hydrogen peroxide to which Pro never responded and it seems like homeostasis is the exact reason I would give my kid water instead of a poison, not a universe creator.
I don't read this debate and think, "you know why I don't harm or mistreat people?...a creator and ruler of the universe, that's why"
I think like most people, I'm going to remember how our homeostasis is affected by people's actions not whether or not a universe creator makes those actions moral or not.
Pro never refuted that the homeostatic principle accounts for all moral actions, which means that morality is objectively measured by homeostasis, and Pro never refuted that the universe was not created, so objective morality exists and given Pro and Con's performance, god is not required for this objectivity.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/338?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=16
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://shrib.com/#MVisEVyqTjwcm6aFvH6l
Don’t worry, you only get hundreds of angry PMs from Magic Aimt Real if you vote against him.
Hey this is my first real in-depth vote so if I screwed up let me know, I will explain things too.
Sorry for putting RFDs backwards. I’m pasting from a phone, and just can’t be bothered to wrestle trying to past from bottom to top!
As always, if either side would like any specific or generalized feedback, or clarification - let me know.
Gods existence:
The pseudo-kritik is IMO valid - but while pro doesn’t address the specifics head on - he points that if he proves P1 separately then his P1 stands. I think this is also valid.
As pointed out, con hinges all other counters to pros arguments to homeostasis, the dominos all fall and Pro satisfies P1.
So, given this, pro establishes P1, and even if con refutes P1, that leaves me a choice of whether cons refutation of P1 was as strong as pros establishment. Here, I don’t think went into nearly enough detail or provided enough information as pro did for C1, so I don’t feel it fair to award all arguments on this single fact.
Conclusion:
This was actually tough to weigh: Firstly, many arguments were implicitly linked together, and I had to determine whether of one thread was pulled the sweater fell apart.
As a bystander, this felt a little like two storms-troopers having a shoot out: there were several times where either side could have been obliterated with the right argument at the right time, but there were opportunities not taken.
At the end, I think con did not establish the homeostasis principle as a valid moral framework, through his contentions, pro highlighted its insufficiency - and as this was the primary reason pro gave me to reject P1, the failure to demonstrate Homeostasis consequently affirms P1 as a result - and thus the debate contention.
Arguments to pro.
As a result, I can’t say con refuted the crux of pros opening arguments - but also I can’t say that pros use of OMF stands against homeostasis either.
The upshot of this, is basically that P1 passes or fails based on cons homeostasis argument. On this count, I believe con fails to demonstrate this in the face of pros arguments - and as such he fails to offer a valid rebuttal to pros main arguments on these points.
As a result - I have to consider P1 stands.
Now: onto ancillary points:
Free will: pro argues that atheism cannot account for free will. If I accept pros argument as true - there is no clear argument he provides as to why this necessitates objective morality proving God.
While this would be valid in a “does god exist” debate - in the current debate, it does not appear relevant to the contention. So I must reject it.
Conversely, while con refutes pro in a similar manner (IMO), I don’t feel this negates the content either. Unless one side or other clearly explains why god must exist if morality is objective - or not - I can’t use this argument to draw a conclusion. Okay
The NAP. Pro uses this to rebut con, con clearly points out that this is a straw man - and I agree and thus reject this as a rebuttal.
In terms of where to draw the line, with pros arguments on the effects of homeostasis as con presents them, does not make clear the lines drawn between species, and whether affecting the homeostasis of a single celled organism is immoral - I also side with pro here. Con does not provide any method I can see of using homeostasis assessing moral judgements between species or uses homeostasis to present this distinction and thus the point can’t be considered refuted.
Con does reference neural capacity - but as this is an additional contention to homeostasis - and as Con doesn’t show it is objective, or makes any attempt to explain how it could be applied - I can’t consider it a rebuttal to pros very specific point - and pro points out this insufficiency.
On the point of moral commands/OMF, I have to dismiss this point. While my interpretation of what pro said was that morality is a compulsion, that we follow - and that con did not provide an explanation of why such a compulsion exists without God - this isn’t explicitly what pro said and the phrasing he used. I don’t want to use my interpretation of what pro said unless it’s cut and dry.
Con somewhat undermines pros presentation of commands with a single sentence that if there were no universe, there’d be no babies and no one to torture them - this would have been a fascinating avenue - but one that con didn’t follow, and in my view is insufficient on its own to consider P1 refuted.
Finally, pro argued that we are commanded not to kill, the compulsion to follow moral behaviour makes them inherent commands, this element of morality that pro highlighted was mostly dismissed by con (though I will cover this later), and con did not seem to explain why homeostasis would necessarily lead to that same compulsion, only that it did.
These were the primary exchanged arguments (other than ancillary points that I will weight separately), and I wanted to conclude on them as a whole:
Pro summarizes that cons argument on the harm part of the argument was arbitrary. I agree. Cons attempts to show trivial harms are the reason massively immoral acts are immoral is almost self refuting in the context of the debate - I believe pro manages to highlight these weaknesses and insufficiencies of the framework as a result.
Pro summarized that cons argument on the long vs short term homeostasis was also a cop out. I also agree. If con had argued driving was immoral - which he could have - it would have been reasonable, but cons attempt to resolve short and long term seems arbitrary, con did not satisfactorily explain this, and I think pro highlights this sufficiently in his response.
Con sets up a fairly compelling framework that allows us to measure, analyze and determine the morality of actions. In his main rebuttal con provides an argument based on homeostasis against pros main points. Allowing a direct contrast example for me to weigh.
Pro points out two primary thrusts of objections: 1.) cons explanation has a series of potential moral paradoxes. 2.) cons argument would apply to single celled life which seems absurd.
Both of these points cast legitimate doubt on cons argument.
Con follows up with detailed explanations on both counts, that seem reasonable, however a major contention that pro raises is not answered by con: Namely, if it is possible to commit an obviously immoral act without harming homeostasis, cons argument is refuted. Con focuses instead on showing that a given act causes harm, no matter how small or trivial that harm may be.
Con also deflects the second point. Saying that we draw the line because of aspects of consciousness.
Furthering this, there was an exchange about long term and short term benefits and homeostasis. Relating to cars and driving. Pro argued that driving should be considered immoral based on the framework, whereas con disagrees citing long vs short term homeostasis.
Sources, conduct and grammar inseparable so marked as a tie.
Note: apologies if I have mixed up pro and con here - hopefully it’s clear.
Arguments:
Pro starts laying out his logical case for why objective morality (which is not contested by either side) supports God.
This majority of pros opening argument is largely uncontested by con - other than con offering his own explanation as refuting pros positions, and hinging all his points directly on that.
This means this whole debate turns on whether con shows that his explanation for moral facts is valid, and pro needs to show the reverse. If pro does it that, it appears all objections to pros position are removed and pro wins.
Con sets up his argument on homeostasis, effectively explaining an objective way of determining whether an action is moral or not.
Thanks for the vote, you sufficiently explained your argument points and how it related to the resolution. Nice work.
Yes. We both agreed without human opinion and my case was objective morality exists sans god. Please be fair here, I know you put up good votes, please be fair.
Confirmed
Can I confirm something? You mentioned that you agreed in PMs that “Objective: moral facts are true independent of human opinion”, and in pros body “P2: Objective moral facts exist (not in dispute)”.
Could I ask whether con contended either of these two statements? I couldn’t see that these were contested anywhere, just wanted to check before I start reviewing.
Can't say I agree, but excellent RFD
Thanks for the RFD!
For me:
1. any moral action is reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting.
2. god is not needed for homeostasis to be an objective standard for morality.
3. the universe wasn't created, therefore the homeostatic principle doesn't need god to exist to be objectively moral.
I've tried your suggestion too many times before and had my efforts struck from the record for not meeting these criteria.
Only PRO and CON [[themselves]] can determine which particular excerpts can be properly considered their respective "Main Arguments".
You have to determine, from your reading of the debate, what the main arguments relevant to the resolution are, then justify awarding points for each.
Per https://www.debateart.com/rules
"This survey must be comprehensive, which is to say that it must survey all or most of the main arguments in the debate..."
So, for the record, can you both please point out to me what you consider to be your Main Arguments from this particular debate.
"The comprehensiveness requirement simply requires you analyze the "main" arguments, of which there are usually 2 to 5 in a debate."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/864?page=4&post_number=79
PRO fails to give even a single example of some moral command (OMF) that might (necessarily) supposedly come from a god.
It was a good debate. I'm still mulling over who I think did better. I expected it to be an easy ride for Pro, but Con made good points and held his own on rebuts. Wish more debates were like this.
Me to! In fact this is probably on of my favorite debates of all time.
I'm loving this debate.
I think I wrote the word "homeostasis" 17 times in one round.
My fellow teachers would be proud.