Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
My position is that an intrinsic moral code that outlines and defines good as an objective standard, rather than a utilitarian standard or Kantian Maxim, cannot exist without a supreme and objective outside source defining an action or mode of action as good. Your position (pro) would argue against that hypothesis, and that a code of objective values CAN exist without God, OR, that a subjective system of ethical values could be as strong of a system. Additionally, the discussion of whether or not the adoption of a subjective system of ethical values, to serve a utilitarian or other function, would be interesting to make reference to, and I am completely open to switching my position if I am convinced by the argument. Additionally, this is not a religious argument, but a purely philosophical one, and should not include the invocation of, say, Biblical passages for the purpose of proving the "brutality" of the Judeo-Christian moral code.
I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. My opening statement might mirror the description of the debate. It is of my opinion that no rational argument exists for the existence of an infallible moral system, with clear cut right and wrong (good and evil if you like) actions. I've heard new age philoposhers, such as Matt Dillahunty or Sam Hyde, put forward systems of ethics where an attainable goal is the desiredd outcome, for instance, the minimization of human suffering. Kantian Maxims have been used to give universal motive for such a system, including the idea that, for instance, you as an individual should not propagate actions which might lead to your own personal suffering, so it would be imprudent of you to participate in such actions against other people, thereby fostering a reality where should everyone act as such, you might become a victim of such actions, and therefore suffer. This argument, while logical, allows for the idea that should you know for a fact that you will not end up the victim of such suffering, classically considered immoral actions taken against someone by you would be patently acceptable, as the entire premise is built upon the mitigation of your own suffering. Can my opponent reconcile this fact, or, should my opponent disagree with the notions put forward, can my opponent introduce a system of ethics where good is inherently good, and bad is inherently bad? Additionally, can my opponent perhaps introduce a system of ethics not based upon the objective standards of a God, that would function just as strongly?
RationalMadman by default wins this argument given the contender's description. The proposition over which they argue is "Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God." So Con's responsibility is to argue its negation, which would be "Moral Codes Can Exist in and of Themselves Without God." While Con did acknowledge his folly, his arguments nonetheless informed Pro's position. And Pro wasn't shy to agree with Con's arguments immediately. I will award however conduct to Con because despite his mistake he remained calm and polite. Pro, while maintaining some decorum, took a few jabs (i.e. "Blind User") and admitted to the possibility of his trolling the subject. Spelling and Grammar was virtually the same for the both of them, as well as references to sources.
In brief: Looks like an attempted noob snipe, but it missed by a mile.
Arguments (AI):
Given that RM agreed to the terms of the debate outlined in the description (including a clarification on who was who), and proceeded to immediately concede the debate in R1, this goes to AI. The debate never goes back on topic after that, so RM has no points made for his side of the resolution; whereas AI’s points were left utterly uncontested.
The single argument is straight forward, morals are not infallible unless you exclusively obey divine command theory, which kind of says we should not try to understand morals… But again, uncontested, and at least on topic.
As for mechanical aspects of this site: It was off topic within this debate. Start a debate on it with a moderator if it’s such a problem.
Note on debate descriptions: Troll debates are not moderated, so it makes intuitive sense that votes ignoring a troll-strain in a description would not be punished. I as a voter do enforce descriptions, as it says when creating a debate “Detailed description which may contain any important information about the format, the rules and etc.” Granted I generally view violating rules there as a conduct only issue.
Conduct (AI):
R2, RM choose to repeatedly insinuate that AI blind, and further that it would be a bad thing about him or her were that the case. This was done as a tactic to not engage with the debate subject.
Comparatively, AI accused RM of not reading before accepting, which I doubt is true, but RM choose to present himself in a manner to imply the truth to that statement. This was done to try to get the debate back on topic.
AI did briefly fall to RMs level (a reverse paraphrase of RMs statements against the blind, in this case because RM said he needs an aid to read for him, he said the same about RM), but it does not hurt as bad because it was with the clear intent of getting the topic both of them agreed to debate to actually happen.
S&G (tied):
This leans slightly in favor of RM for catching the mistake, and for awkward formatting, but nothing was bad enough to interfere in understanding the debate.
For formatting I suggest only using the indent for larger chunks of text; such as quotations which go across multiple lines. And yes, of course be careful in regards to selecting pro and con before instigating a debate, and if accepting one make sure it's one you are actually interested in debating.
The description was, in my view, completely transparent and clear. While the debate title is sometimes used as the resolution: in this case not only did con clearly and specifically outline what his position was, and what pros position would be, he clearly framed the definitions and positions without ambiguity as to who is who.
Instead of arguing in good faith; pro instead attempts a semantic and nonsensical attack implying that the resolution “wasn’t clear”. While pro goes to great length to explain that debate rules and definitions added in the debate description are not enforced by moderation - pro offers no meaningful argument I can see about what aspect of these rules in this debate should be rejected as unfair or unreasonable, or why I as a voter should over turn the description in his favour.
Indeed pros entire position appears to be “despite the description being clear and fully transparent: I disagree with the allotment of pro and con”. Pro offers me no good reason for why I should reject the clear and concise description and as such pros engire argument is irrelevant.
As pro inherently appears to have the burden of proof, as outlined by the description, and implied in cons opening round - pros failure to engage in any debate on the topic means he offers no actual argument and thus I am forced to award arguments to con.
Conduct:
Pros strategy appears not to be to engage in an actual debate, but to launch a ridiculous semantic argument and frustrate his opponent into forfeiting the debate as a whole. Not only is this arguing in bad faith, it is a shity and antisocial tactic that is likely to drive users from the site. Why would anyone want to use this site, when they create a debate with the intention of debating a topic, only to have a user launch into a left field semantic attack? Con does well to politely sit back and let pro continue his tactic - without forfeiting, or being rude - and for that, I commend him.
Given that pro clearly argues in bad faith, that matching what appears to be a genuine attempt at an intellectual discussion with ridiculous semantics is massively disrespectful to his opponent, and given that such behaviour is clearly detrimental and antithetical to debate in general and the long term health of this site in particular, this constitutes extremely toxic behaviour from pro both within and without the debate : as a result I am awarding con the conduct point too.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: No debate was had, so I can not give any points
CONDUCT goes CON due to RM not even making an argument and going off topic to stir away the moral of the debate, which is a bad conduct and extremely rude
>Reason for Mod Action: Most of this RFD is borderline, and so we default to considering that portion of the RFD as sufficient. What is missing from this RFD that mandates its removal is that there is no explicit comparison between the conduct of both debaters. Simply saying: "Con's conduct was unproblematic," would likely be a sufficient enough addition for this vote to pass moderation review.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
RFD: Con actually made a argument while RM went off topic
Reason for mod action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Lol are you reporting votes to the admins
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Ragnar // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
I think the word 'you' means multiple things, I didn't know that to you it has only one context and has to be the same in all sentences.
WTF? I don't get it?
End of his R2's opening sentence confirms he's either talking to his opponent, or else insisting all readers have artificial red skin. By the context I choose to interpret that he was speaking to his opponent.
"I am green side, you are red. If you are a blind user of this website who reads the text on an audible means of taking them in, Please ask anyone you know who can see and that you trust to verify this."
https://www.debateart.com/debates/984/vote_links/2339 This RFd completely lies about me and my case. I never mocked the blind or said anything about my opponent being blind, I was referring to a solution if the reader of the debate was blind to ascertain which side was red and green.
I never said that he was blind I said if the reader was blind to ask someone they trust to determine which side is red and green, stop trolling your RFD's it's embarrassing for you.
Welcome to the site! Sorry you got trolled like that on your first debate here... I recently had a debate on the same topic, which reading it may help you refine your arguments against my side (yup, I respectfully firmly disagree with you): https://www.debateart.com/debates/949
Or to be more succinct.
If your argument is that you didn’t read the description: I won’t overturn. That’s your fault not your opponents.
If your argument is that the rules and description can arbitrarily be ignored by either side: I won’t overturn. That’s not fair on your opponent.
I will only overturn if a reasonable interpretation of the title and description is unfair to one side.
As I said:
“In terms of the resolution, pro/con could go either way, the phrasing of the resolution could work either way.
“Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God”
Con could mean “they cannot” or “that sentence is false” “
In this case, the title could possibly go both ways, the debate as a whole appears 100% absolutely and totally unambiguously clear as to what your position should be prior to your acceptance. This means you have to make a very good argument to convince me that you were “confused” into accepting the wrong side of the debate, or that cons failure to specify both sides unambiguously caused you to think you were accepting a different side.
Your argument wasn’t any of these things - but was instead demanding that I simply ignore the description of the debate and focus on an interpretation that was preferrential to you and detrimental to con - for no good apparent reason.
I’m not going to do that in a billion years because it is inherently unfair to one side that made no mistake or error. Overturning the description is solely about whether the description is unfair to one side and should be to redress the unfairness.
You appeared to argue that it should be overturned to MAKE it unfair to one side because you saw a perceived way of arguing that the setup was incorrect and wanted to capitalize on that to score a cheap win.
You don't think anyone could reasonably interpret the green side as Pro? It is irrefutably the absolute means of determining which side is which on this website.
So in that regard - he met the burden of proof in the description
By all means, share quotes matching the criteria below, I am interested in being fair and want to make sure that I have not missed where you have argued one of the key points.
In terms of the resolution, pro/con could go either way, the phrasing of the resolution could work either way.
“Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God”
Con could mean “they cannot” or “that sentence is false”
Normally, the debate description clarified exactly - and I don’t think anyone could reasonably interpret your position as you did. And by all means if you argued that it’s not reasonable to interpretat it any other way, please quote it here.
If the resolution was “Moral codes depend on God”, and he was con arguing that moral codes depend on God, you would have a case.
In reality you give the impression that you looked at the debate, didn’t want to argue the topic at hand, but instead found some semantic way to argue against your opponent, despite it clearly not being a reasonable interpretation of what he meant.
Mhmmm fantastic, thank you. You forget how he has burden of proof to prove that he isn't Con after having selected it.
Again, thank you for the feedback. To clarify:
My criteria for overturning for the debate description is:
1.) The one wishing the description overturned has burden of proof.
2.) As the debate rules are accepted by both sides, for me to overturn it, you must do one or more of the following:
- Show how the rules inherently prevent a debate by making it impossible or difficult for one side to lose.
- Show how the rules as being interpreted by one side match the specific semantics - but not the reasonable interpretation of the definitions/rules such that one sides approach to the debate rules is not how any reasonable person would have envisaged them whilst accepting them.
- Show how the rules and description appear to have been a trap - subtle description changes from the title mean it is reasonable for the contender to think he was taking one position, but I’m actuality an easily missed semantic difference in the description means the instigator forces the contender to take another.
I may well have missed something subtle: if you can quote me the part where you provided a solid argument to support the above, I will remove my vote and devote for you.
What I saw from yourself - was you objecting to the pro and con labels (the third bullet),l. In my view the title could be taken either way, thus the description clarifies. As the description was clear and specific, I don’t think you have shown the resolution is unfairly switched, or any clear reason why I must presume this was a trap - nor that you were genuinely thinking you were debating on one side, only to have it switched by your opponent.
By all means, I may have missed something: let me know what I missed above, and I will revisit if I genuinely missed something.
No one objectively should do anything, that is actually the truth of life. Everything is based on 'can' in logic.
I know that you do not consider it rude or severely rude. You considering it rude is irrelevant to it actually being rude.
You reject it as poor arbitrarily as you accept his as 'good'/'strong'.
'if you gave me a good reason', I did. Several. You just change 'good' to 'poor' and suddenly the statement is able to be turned on its head. :)
Hi RM, thank you for the feedback. Just a few points:
Firstly, Con wasn’t particularly rude at any time, he seemed relatively polite throughout. While there were two points where he bordered on a little condescending - I wouldn’t consider this especially “rude” and definitely not “severely rude”
Secondly, definition is not sovereign. Arguments are sovereign. I will and have rejected definitions, rules and the description where one side provides a good argument as to why I, as a voter, should discount them. The side arguing against the description has burden to uphold here.
As I pointed out in my decision, I am rejecting your arguments and your logic as poor, and insufficient to overturn the description, because you showed no clear harm and no clear unfairness inherent in that description.
As such, when you say I am arguing “the voter is supposed to respect it over the logic of the debate or the facts of the debate” this is completly incorrect - I am respecting the definition as the logic and facts you raised were not sufficient to meet your burden for me to overturn it.
If you gave me a good reason why the description was unfair, why it was an obvious trap, or why the debate was unwinnable - I would have considered those and overturned the description.
Your focus was almost solely on CAN a voter ignore the definitions (they can) rather than SHOULD a voter ignore these definitions. As a result, you don’t overturn the definition - and the description stands.
case in point.
Emotionally tormenting? Die trying?
What are we,five?
You are precisely what you think I am, that's all I have to say. You can post memes, make everyone laugh at me and treat me like a piece of dirt and I am telling you I still will come out strong and grand or die trying.
You really need to lose your hero complex, it's actually quite disgusting in my eyes. You keep treating me like I'm someone you should use all means to vote against and thoroughly dig at and run off the website by emotionally tormenting me at any given opportunity.
I promise you here, openly, that you won't win in the long run and I am not going to sit quietly for long. You want to treat me like shit, you will learn I am not.
Con was severely rude to me throughout, you just enjoy when I'm verbally abused so you call it polite.
If this is untrue, please discipline him appropriately and teach him how voting works. If he is correct, please teach him how to be consistent.
take note, ramshutu has through action and words shown that if a description says something, the voter is supposed to respect it over the logic of the debate or the facts of the debate mechanics.
thank you for this, I will be sure to take note of this any time you ever even think of not holding debate descriptions as sovereign again.
I will go more into why the description (if it contradicts with the physical side) is to be disregarded, in my next Round.
“Your position (pro) would argue against that hypothesis, and that a code of objective values CAN exist without God, OR, that a subjective system of ethical values could be as strong of a system”
This doesn’t seem particularly ambiguous to me.
sounds good, I'll create the debate and challenge you.
If you’re willing to issue me a challenge that is an exact copy of this debate, with at least a 3 day argument period - I would happily accept and argue in good faith specifically on the topic in question
I hate when people say 'not' in the title, take the Con side and actually support the Not meaning they did 2 things to screw up the natural flow of the sides.
I would take this in a second if it was a 3 day argument period.