Interpersonal moral decisions can be made without referencing a religious framework.

I will now conclude my contribution to this debate with my rebuttal of my opponent's points. 1. ". .. Taoism, Confucianism and Chiang and Zen Buddhism are religions but are not really heavy on 'supernatural justification. '" True, although they do provide some moral framework, as Taoism requires essentially devotion to harmony and Confucianism devotion to traditional behaviors. [1] [2] My argument is, in fact, more along the lines that "any religious moral teaching can just as well be taught without the religion" but it also extends beyond that point, arguing that a moral framework can exist independent of a basic conceptual structure of, relating to, or devoted to an organized body of beliefs or observances. In short, it's an argument that one can determine the right action in any given case by what causes the least harm to society and/or society's members and provides the most benefit thereto. The difference is that there is no veneration for the morals, just acceptance of the morals as appropriate. 2. "What if an immoral person in an immoral religion switched religions and became moral? One could argue that the religion therefore had nothing to do with the morality. But it could be argued that the immoral religion was necessary to make a point. " Actually, an argument could be made that an immoral person in an immoral religion that became moral by joining another religion would be a living testament to the benefit of the replacement religion, as it would appear to be the cause of the individual's transformation. So I really can't be sure of the purpose of this argument. "Up to and including argument 1, replace the word "religious" with "any" and we have an argument that no moral code, religious or otherwise, is necessary. This is not particularly about religion though. " Maybe so. The line between religion and a personal belief can sometimes be tenuous. However, for the purposes of this argument, I have limited discussion to religion. There is no need to extend the scope. "As for argument 2, just because morals are "propounded" does not mean they will be observed. Many of your "born again" testimonials are from those who needed religion. This proves both that the religion in question is not necessarily for everyone, but that it does work and was necessary in some cases, typically involving drug abuse as well as other kinds of abuse. " This is true. My argument, however, is not that interpersonal moral decisions will be made without reference to a religious framework, but rather that they can be. For those individuals who only act morally when they are scared or shamed into acting so, some agreed upon social game that everyone can play to score morality points (religion) may be necessary. For others, it may not be as appealing. Proving that some people do not act morally ever, or would not without something to fear, does not mean that a person could not act morally without guidance to a religious framework; it simply means that they choose not to. If a person is wholly incapable of acting morally, then that person would not act morally within the religious framework any more than he or she would without it, which leaves the person as an amoral agent outside the scope of this discussion. "Argument 3, we are back to arguing more against any moral code than particularly a religious one. " Not exactly true. Some moral code would have to exist for a person to act above and beyond what that person would be expected to do, to the point that any individual would seek to emulate him or her. Therefore, some consideration of morality must take place, if not necessarily within a religious framework. This concludes my rebuttal. I remind my opponent to limit the scope of his final argument to countering my rebuttal, as per the rules agreed upon in round one. I look forward to the conclusion of this very philosophical debate. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...