Atheism can not account for right and wrong

Sigh.... yet AGAIN my opponent demonstrates his woeful misunderstanding of both his own resolution and morality writ large. The resolution clearly states "Atheism can not account for RIGHT AND WRONG." The resolution does NOT say "Atheism can not account for MORALITY." And even if it did, this would be of no importance, because any system that can account for right and wrong can account for morality. What my opponent means to say is that atheistic moral systems do not align with Christian moral systems. This should not be a surprise to anyone, and my opponent has spent four rounds as though it should be. ****************************************** Responses: >> Thus we can conclude that there are different VIEWS in which someone could have on this issue, which could both be 'CLASSIFIED' as morally RIGHT!" This statement represents and egregious misunderstanding of morality, and explains why my opponent is so utterly befuddled on this topic. Simply because people have differing opinions of right and wrong does not mean that they are both right. It means they use different methods for determining the concept. If people reasoned with the SAME CONCEPT in the SAME SITUATION, they would arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION. >> "Yes, people can have moral reasoning, but the final choice they make can not be deemed as wrong!" This is entirely false, and again shows how confused my opponent is. In order to morally reason, one must be able to account for right and wrong. How else could one morally reason? It doesn't make sense to say that in a given situation, Bob is morally reasoning, though he cannot understand right and wrong. Yet this is what my opponent seems to endorse. When using a set criteria, there is only one "right" action. My opponent seems to think that the fact that other criteria exist implies that there are multiple right actions under the same criteria. >> "With God, its different, because there is only ONE 'right way' for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are 'absolute' and can be "accounted" for!" Again, this illustrates what I stated above. If you replace "God" with any other criteria, you get: "With utilitarianism... there is only ONE "right way" for any situation, no matter what the person views as right. Thus these morals are absolute and can be accounted for." ****************************************** Perhaps if I explain this Socraticly in a way that a third-grader could understand we shall finally get somewhere... Q: What are right and wrong? A: Right and wrong are labels we use to describe an action in moral terms and signify that the content of the action carries moral import. Q: Where do we get these labels? What do they mean? A: The criteria for assigning an action a label as right or wrong is dependent on the system of morality one adopts. For example, in some moral systems, that which violates God's law is categorically "wrong." In other systems, the same action may be described as "right" given the circumstances or carry no moral import at all. However, the action itself is the same. Q: So the content of the action and the judgment are separate? A: Yes, the content of the action is the same in all circumstances. The judgment depends on criteria one uses to evaluate right and wrong. Consider the action of not going to Church on Sunday, but rather working to help clean trash along the roadway. Some moral systems would classify this as "wrong" because it violates one of God's laws (keep holy the Sabbath), but other moral systems would classify it is "right" because they do not have a rule that involves going to Church, and working for the benefit of the community is a good thing to do. Q: What's the difference between Christian and Atheistic moral systems? A: The difference is entirely in the criteria one uses to determine right vs. wrong. Christian moral systems include an appeal to the static nature of God's law, and Atheistic moral systems appeal to the nature of man as a social animal and other characteristics of interaction. Q: Don't we need God to make right and wrong mean something? A: Of course not - if God did not exist, we could still state that something was wrong. For example, God's existence has nothing at all to do with whether or not raping babies is wrong. Furthermore, moral principles are clearly not dependent on God. If God had made an 11th commandment that read "Thou shalt rape thy baby thrice daily," it would not be morally right to do so. Thus, one can see that right and wrong have meaning independent of God. Q: Ok - without God, how do we account for right and wrong? A: We account for right and wrong by assessing an action by a set of moral principles or criteria. The same mechanism applies across all forms of morality. Consider: Example: Action -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of _______ -> Judgment. Christian: Murder -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of God's law -> Wrong. Atheist: Murder -> Right/Wrong? -> Assessment in terms of XYZ -> Wrong. As one can see, the only difference is what one assesses right and wrong by. Since right and wrong are by their very nature dependent on the characteristics of what one assesses an action by, as long as there is a criteria to fill in the blank above, then one can account for right and wrong. ************************************** My opponent has several glaring holes in his argument that must be addressed in the final round. 1) He has repeatedly stated that God's moral system is the only objective one. He must show both that any non-subjective system of morality is incorrect and that God's objective system is the correct objective one. 2) He has held that there are multiple "right" actions under non-God moral systems. He has not shown how this is possible. He must demonstrate that people using the same criteria and same reasoning in the same situation can arrive at different conclusions for this to be a salient point. 3) He has stated that people can morally reason without including God. He must then show that one can morally reason without accounting for right and wrong, or he has conceded the debate. 4) He has stated that non-God systems of morality do not account for right and wrong, but has not attacked by conceptualization of right and wrong as being dependent on the moral system itself. Rather, he has attacked all my points inside a Christian framework, where they of course do not account for right and wrong. However, he must evaluate the position in its native framework. To evaluate it inside a Christian framework is a begging the question fallacy. 5) He holds that God gives us the criteria for evaluating right and wrong, but does not show how this is any different from other systems that are also dependent on universally applicable criteria. For example, all act-utilitarians use the same criteria, just as all Christians of the same denomination use the same criteria. He must show the difference in the models of the system of morality. ALL of these points MUST be addressed for my opponent to have even the beginnings of a salient argument. ************************************** To be a moral system, a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong is necessary. Moral systems exist. Therefore, all moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. If there is a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong, one can account for the concepts. All moral systems have a criteria for the evaluation of right and wrong. Therefore, all moral systems can account for right and wrong. Thus, for the fourth time, I've shown how ANY moral system can account for right and wrong. NEGATED.