Secular morality is superior to religious morality

In this debate, I will defend two propositions, any of which, if true or probably true, is independently sufficient to negate the resolution. These propositions are as follows:1. The assumptions inherent within the resolution as stated are self-refuting.2. Judgment regarding the qualitative state of superiority with respect to two disparate moral frameworks is either inscrutable or firmly in the favor of a religious framework. The assumptions inherent within the resolution as stated are self-refuting. What do I mean when I say that the assumptions within the resolution are self-refuting? One of the operating assumptions in my opponent’s employ is: “the Bible is simply wrong on morality on various counts. ” This is what philosophers call a hysteron proteron, insofar as the fallacy of begging the question has been committed in a single step. This fallacy may be clearer if we were to summarize my opponent’s point thusly: The Bible is not a moral authority because it is not a moral authority. It wouldn’t be so painful if this were not such an accurate rewording of my opponent’s statement. For indeed, the only way to know that the Bible is wrong is to assume some other, unstated moral authority that is seemingly both objective and obligatory. Perhaps since my opponent is arguing for the superiority of a secular moral framework, he has appealed to its arbitration on this matter. But then we are given another one of his operating assumptions: "[secular morality is] not a perfect system. ” But this is very strange. If a religious framework is wrong because it’s wrong and a secular moral system is not perfect either, then what IS morality exactly? Indeed, what moral system does my opponent appeal to in order to make a qualitative distinction between two disparate frameworks? He is appealing to some apparently objective and transcendent moral framework whereby we may judge all other systems. Pray hope he shares this system with the world. The reality is that if my opponent’s assumptions are correct then both systems are equally bad for the reason of them both being equally untrue. The law of identity states that any entity x is exactly equal to itself. So a = b if and only if b = a in all circumstances. If there are any instances where b does not = a then we know, by parity of our more cherished law of thought, that b is definitely NOT identical to a. Since, according to my opponent’s assumptions, both a religious morality and secular morality occasionally fail to produce principles congenial with what is ACTUALLY moral, then we can safely say that neither system is identical with actual morality and thus both are equally wrong. It would be like arguing between the superiority of 3 or 5 as answers to the equation 2+2. These operating assumptions, therefore, prevent the resolution from even beginning. Judgment regarding the qualitative state of superiority with respect to two disparate moral frameworks is either inscrutable or firmly in the favor of a religious framework. Since both moralities in question are ostensibly not identical with actual morality, the only way to discern which is superior is by finding out what the true morality is so that we can contrast them against it. Absent this true morality to which my opponent tacitly refers (but does not share), we cannot make a qualitative statement with respect to either moral system. In which case, unless my opponent can furnish this alternative moral metric that is objective, transcendent, and binding, we must admit that the conclusion regarding superiority remains inscrutable. We can avoid this by throwing out my opponent’s assumptions. In which case, the question would be: which moral system best accounts for the existence of moral actions and duties? There are two facets of morality worth looking at: its epistemology and its ontology. Religious morality can account for the epistemological aspects of morality and its ontological aspects. Secular morality can account for epistemological aspects but not ontological ones. By this I mean to say that secular morality cannot explain why moral virtues and duties actually exist and why humankind ought to bend their wills to it. Therefore, without assuming the falsity of the systems from the onset, we are able to ask a better question, namely what system accounts for morality more sufficiently, and arrive at the conclusion that a religious framework has a better claim to the existence of moral values and duties then any secular framework. ConclusionMy opponent will want to provide us with the moral metric that he is using in order to make qualitative assessments of two disparate moral systems. If he fails to produce this system then we have no epistemological access to the information necessary to make qualitative assessments, largely because we have no idea what is actually morally right and wrong. Furthermore, my opponent will want to explain how two wrong moralities are to be weighed on a scale of superiority. Good luck.