Secular Morality

I will be upholding the style of morality as presented by Sam Harris in his debate with William Craig. To give a brief road map of my intended style of debate, I will be outlining my case in this round and then following this round with a rebuttal and then a conclusion upholding my case once again. I. The purpose for moral values. Morals and values don't just exist because of someone's claim to divine law, they have a very important place among our environment as a whole; it is for the betterment of our society. Morals stem from a need to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. Consequently, the idea of do onto others as you wish to have done to yourself is born. If you are working against success as a species, you can be seen as objectively wrong— not relatively. Whether they be someone’s relative morals or some objective morals, they are attributed to a view of what one thinks is the way away from what is the worst possible misery for everyone. II. Objective moral values and relative moral values coexist. It is often argued that there must be some total moral absolute code and nothing else or that there must be a total relative code, and nothing else. These are both flawed because morals exist as both objective and relative. Murdering in and of itself, thieving in and of itself, and raping in and of itself are things that all people consider to be objectively wrong. Wrong in a sense that it is not working against the worst possible misery for everyone. One can make those relative morals by giving them further meaning, but in and of themselves they are always seen as wrong. For an example of giving them further meaning from a theistic standpoint, we have Islamic law in Iran. In Islamic law a woman cannot be executed for any crime, if she is a virgin. Virgins are automatically granted access to heaven, but the women in question have moral behaviors that are deemed heinous and unproductive towards society. Thus, they devised a system that enables her forced marriage and rape so that they are able to enact capital punishment, and they base it on their Qur’an. In this same country, rape is still illegal. The average citizen may not rape another person; it is still seen as objectively wrong. But it has been made relative in the instance of execution. [1] With the previous example, it is important that one can be wrong when they delve into the realm of relative values. Someone can think they’re working for the betterment of society, and not actually be doing so. Relative morals from a theistic standpoint also include abortion, divorce, gay rights, the rights of women, separation of church and state and so on. From a secular standpoint, one can use the instance of saving children. If attacked, people have the responsibility of protecting children. It is seen as objectively wrong, to surrender kids to an attacker. Says who? A societal code ingrained into us to ensure the success of our species. It more useful terms, it is called vile or cowardice to go against moral code. However, if someone were to stumble upon kids in a burning building or kids that were drowning in a crashed car in a river, one does not have that same responsibility. If you do act, you are seen as a hero. If you do not act, you are not instantly deemed cowardly. Deciding if one should use excess profanity, drink, or smoke in a school zone is also a choice relative to your own moral code. When one decides to drive 100mph over the speed limit in a school zone, it is deemed as objectively wrong because they are endangering society, no sane individual disagrees. III. Conclusion What I have shown is that the exhibition of moral codes can be relative to different people, while also encompassing basic ideas that are all objectively right or wrong. I’ve also provided reason for why they are objectively wrong. In my opponent’s post in this round, it is important that you look for the ontological argument behind his case, and not the semantic quarrels. Things are not just wrong because a deity claims them to be, because the deity would then have to have his reasoning for why it thinks they're wrong. The answer is abundantly obvious, because of societal welfare— and it takes no belief in a deity to accomplish such a conclusion. Moreover, no one deity is more provable than another, so no one set of theistic claims of morality can take precedent over another. They're all equally improbable glimpses into the unknown. IV. Discussion between my opponent, myself and the audience. My opponent asked made a statement in the comment section that initially offended me, but it was necessary to address because it follows the belief system of the opposition to this debate. He said, “Without a higher power for morality, if you one day woke up and felt the urge to rape a one year old daughter there'd be no stopping you… Now just shut up you stupid atheist. ” (I move that there should be no conduct point evaluation in this comment because it was not inside the parameters of the debate). The problem behind this is that I already don’t believe in God, have a 6 month of daughter, and yet I would never do so out a personally responsibility for the welfare of my child. It's for the betterment of society and the progression of the human race that I be given the responsibility for the moral obligation for the welfare of my own child. Something ingrained through evolution and enforced through the love of my own creation. We do so out of ingrained social law & evolved morality; otherwise, we are working towards the worst possible scenario, the worst possible misery for everyone. This is something even accepted in parts of the animal kingdom that my opponent has expressed to have no moral code whatsoever. I value rights as much as my opponent does, I just don’t attribute them to an external improbable source. I attribute them to what my opponent’s improbable source attributes them to—societal welfare. As follow up questions of my own, I’d like to ask my opponent a question on the idea of theistic morality & a hypothetical similar to the one he presented me. When one says they’re acting in accordance to their theistic view, is there anything that is off limits? If you were to find out tomorrow that there was no God/metaphysical governing force for the supernatural, would you start murdering & pillaging among your community? [1]. http://www.news.com.au...