Instigator / Pro
28
1465
rating
34
debates
55.88%
won
Topic
#5533
Religion is not needed to live a moral life
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
Americandebater24
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
12
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
It is a common belief that religion is necessary for moral living, but this is wrong. Pro has to show that morality is possible without religion, and Con has to show that morality depends on religion.
Round 1
Thank you Con for accepting the debate.
First argument: Objective morality does not exist.
To assert that a particular religion is essential for a moral life, one must show that the religion not only has a moral framework but that this morality is universally applicable. However, it is impossible to prove that any moral philosophy is universally true. Disagreements even exist within religions. For instance, some Christians interpret the biblical commandment "Thou shall not kill" literally, believing all killing is wrong based on their religious teachings. Conversely, other Christians believe that killing in self-defense is morally justifiable, as they interpret that God does not wish for them to perish. Without a universal consensus established as fact, the idea that morality is objective simply because a religion teaches it cannot be upheld.
Second argument: Objective morality cannot exist if subjective morality is true.
Life is not simply black and white. What one person views as evil may be seen as good by another. For instance, America values the freedom to speak one's mind because it prioritizes individual rights over the feelings of others. In contrast, other societies may see this emphasis on individualism as harmful arrogance that fosters disunity and bullying. If the world were clear-cut in terms of morality, there would be no debate over individual freedoms or the limits of free speech. The fact that every moral subject is debated or contested shows that morality is shaped by personal thoughts and experiences, not dictated by a religion claiming to be the will of a God. If we acknowledge that moral situations are subjective, then the notion of objective morality is at best a falsehood and at worst a fantasy.
Third argument: There are too many religions for one to be morally Objective.
There are about 4,000 known religions in the world. How Many Religions Are There in the World? (learnreligions.com) Some may have moral similarities and agreements, but they are not in total agreement. Why should we believe ONE religion's moral principles as THE moral law of the UNIVERSE? By what means would we be able to establish that as a fact? Obviously, we would not be able to. And because we cannot establish ANY of them as morality applicable in ANY Universal sense and thus cannot be used to prove that morality is objective instead of subjective and that religion is needed to live a moral life.
Conclusion: Religion is not necessary to lead a moral life because morality is subjective. It is impossible to establish a universal moral law as an absolute truth, nor can we prove that among thousands, there is one that reigns supreme as the sole true moral philosophy. Morality is inherently gray and subjective; thus, religion is not required to maintain a moral standard of living.
After a couple days, I realized the wording of the topic already puts me at a disadvantage because Objective morality can exist outside of religion (Kant, Utilitarianism, Natural law, etc.)
Therefore, I forfeit because this was already a flawed premise to begin with.
Round 2
Although I disagree with Con's rationale for forfeiting, as I don't perceive a disadvantage on their part—especially since they assert the existence of objective morality, which can be argued from that standpoint—I nonetheless appreciate their time and the courtesy of informing me about their lack of interest.
Forfeited
Round 3
Thats the end I guess.
Forfeited
Good luck on your future debates.
I of course advise accepting that premises are usually flawed, and testing your skill by arguing them anyways.
The idea that there are universal moral concepts is misleading. Although murder is frequently mentioned as universally immoral, it is actually a legal term used within judicial systems. To deem an act as murder from a moral perspective is to engage in subjective interpretation. For instance, the killing of a person for burglarizing a home may be viewed as justified by the homeowner, yet the burglar's family would perceive it as the murder of their relative. Morality is invariably contextual, not absolute.
You seem to be denying the universal ideas of morality, universals that seem true across cultural barriers, such as murder. I see your argument, but it's a bold move.
No, You can lead a moral life even if morality is not an objective reality. Subjective morality doesn't imply the absence of moral values; rather, it means that individuals shape their morality based on personal perceptions and experiences instead of an external authority. For example, Christians say that stealing is morally wrong because Christianity teaches that is a sin. That is a purposed objective moral view because no matter what, stealing is viewed as wrong.
As an atheist, I may consider stealing to be morally acceptable based on my perceptions and values. This means that regardless of my moral standpoint, I am living a lifestyle that I consider to be moral and successful.
Regarding the debate on whether morality is objective or subjective, the law of non-contradiction dictates that it can only be one, not both. Given that there is no universal adherence to or agreement on any moral concept, a universal moral standard cannot exist for objective morality or realism to hold true. In summary, while countless examples may demonstrate the subjectivity of morality, not a single instance of universal applicability exists to support the existence of objective morality.
>Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.
An entity that necessitates belief for its existence is not empirical. Morality exists solely because humans conceptualized it. Similarly, mathematics straddles the empirical and the non-empirical. For instance, the truth of 2+2 equaling four does not rely on belief, as it is demonstrable and applicable in reality. Conversely, the non-empirical aspect of mathematics, such as algebraic equations, does not directly correlate to real-life situations. For example, the equation 2x-8 equals a certain value and does not represent a tangible number, as 2x is an abstract concept created to address a particular mathematical problem.
In contrast, morality lacks an empirical foundation; it is a subjective notion that arises solely from the experiences and philosophical teachings of individuals.
You're missing the point entirely. My point is that for your side to be true, it has to be possible to live a moral life, and in order for that to be true, moral realism has to be true. However, moral realism can't be true if morality is inherently subjective and vice-versa.
Also, the fact that morality isn't a tangible thing doesn't make it inherently subjective either. Mathematics is an intangible concept. That doesn't mean that the fact that 2+2=4 depends on people believing in it.
I suggest researching the law of non-contradiction. For religion to be necessary for a moral life, morality would not only need to be objective but also based on that particular religion. Arguing that morality is subjective does not undermine my case because if morality is proven to be subjective, then objective morality cannot exist, and thus, the necessity of religion for a moral life would also be false.
Secondly, morality does not exist in tangible form. It is a concept adopted through personal experience or the teachings of others. As such, morality relies on individual or collective belief to exist. If no one believes an action to be immoral, then it will not be considered immoral, and vice versaThis renders morality subjective. It cannot be empirically validated as true since it is an abstract concept residing solely within human consciousness.
By arguing that morality is subjective, you're pretty much undermining your whole case. The resolution of this debate implies that a moral life is a thing that one can, in fact, lead, which further implies moral realism. You've basically Kritik'ed your own setup here.
Also, your arguments don't actually disprove moral realism. Everybody on Earth could be wrong about what is and isn't moral and morality could still be objective. If no one believes something to be true, it doesn't cease to be true.
As an atheist myself, I of course don't consider myself to be an immoral person. However, I think there is an interesting angle that one could use to argue the Con side. I'll wait to see if you get anyone that genuinely disagrees with you, but if a few days pass with no takers, I'll consider playing Devil's Advocate.
Cowardice.