Without God there can be no absolute morals.

I would like to welcome my opponent and extend my hope for a great debate! I will seek to refute my opponent's arguments before presenting my main point. My opponent qualifies his argument to "altruistic" moral systems. I do not therefore have to argue other systems of morality (such as Objectivism, for example.) I retain the right to use them, however. My opponent instead attacks utilitarianism. Utilitarianism can be viewed as people doing something because it produces the most total happiness [1]. It is false to explain it as my opponent did. Acting for the happiness of everyone does not necessarily require suffering on the individual's part. It is still possible for the individuals to be happy in a utilitarian system. However, because the opposite is possible, most utilitarian systems instead operate under doing something (or not) because of its good (or bad) consequences [1]. But because good and bad are relative to people, utilitarianism is not an absolute moral. My opponent begins by claiming that people cannot be equal because everyone will look only from his or her own perspective. To each individual, another individual will never be considered equally, and it takes the presence of a third perspective (God) to understand the equality between the first two. I believe this is my opponent's basic argument, and I hope he will correct me if I am mistaken. I find a few problems with this claim. My opponent states that, "if there is no God and no afterlife, then the only person you can really know is yourself." My opponent attempts to create a link between knowledge and equality. I reject this link. Just because I know myself better than I know someone else, that does not mean I am superior to them. Why should my perspective be placed before theirs? There is a step missing in my opponent's argument. My opponent asserts that "a person exists to the amount you experience them." I find fault with this claim as well, aside from the fact that my opponent continues elevating an individual's viewpoint above others without grounds to do so. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Science would tell us that it does. Likewise, we know that there are approximately 7 billion people on this planet (common knowledge). I've never seen that many - does that mean they don't exist? I've never met Steve Jobs or former President George Washington. Do they not exist? Or does having indirect experience with them (textbooks, for example) count? If it does, then this is inconsistent with your other arguments. Before I go further, I should explain my position on individual viewpoints and perspectives in relation to my opponent. My opponent falsely assumes that God is necessary to consider people as equals. Why God? Why can't a third person, a neutral party, or someone with authority, like a judge or magistrate, hold this position? Let us say, for the purposes of this argument, that Person A and B are in an argument, and person C has to resolve it. Person C has never met A or B and knows nothing about them. Why can't (s)he be that third perspective? "It is unlikely that it would be worth killing your best friend for a cheap pair of shoes." True. I don't think God's existence has any impact on this. You feel empathy for your friends regardless of whether or not God exists and absolute morals exist. You would also be unlikely to kill a stranger or, to use your example, a boy in China for a cheap pair of shoes. There are not many people who would knowingly kill someone for cheap shoes. Your examples are not equivalent. Your assumption is that individual people "would like to have as good an experience as possible." I agree that this is a reasonable assumption. I do not see what this has to do with God being the only source of absolute morality. Whether an action is altruistic or motivated by self-interest is irrelevant to the resolution because, again, it does not relate to God being the only source of absolute morality. "1. Some immorality is a cause of happiness." Naturally. But happiness to whom? A pedophile is happy having sexual relations with a child. Most of society agrees that this is immoral. But if it is good to the individual, then you argument seems to support it. "2. All causes of happiness are good (what you want.)" Refer to my previous counterpoint. No, all causes of happiness are not good. The value of a society cannot be the happiness of every individual person. People necessarily have to sacrifice some of their happiness in order to receive the benefits of society. If a murderer is happy killing people, this is not good for society, and is not a good cause of happiness. However, again, society does not need God to say that murder is immoral. For example, Japan is one of the most atheistic countries, with around 31% of the population being atheist [2], and yet it has a low and declining murder rate [3]. Note I am not arguing that religion causes murder and atheism causes it to decline. I am saying that, if my opponent's resolution is true and God is required for absolute morals, then Japan should have a much higher homicide rate than it does. "3. Some immorality is good (what you want)." Again, why value the self above everyone else, and what does God have to do with that? My opponent is correct in his later analysis. From an objective standpoint, you are no more valuable than anyone else. Why does your perspective negate this? If everyone around you believes you will get wet if you jump in a river and you do not believe that, does your perspective negate all of theirs? I don't understand why my opponent keeps using this argument and what God has to do with it. I think my opponent's power structure argument harms his case. If you are forcing morality upon people, does that make it absolute morality? Obviously not. If it was absolute, it would not have to be forced because everyone would accept it. And that is why, as part of my central premise, even with the existence of God, there is no absolute morality. All morality is subjective to the individual. It is no more morally correct to practice Objectivism (Ayn Rand's selfishness is a virtue) than Utilitarianism (the most happiness for the most people). To answer my opponent's question - there are many reasons why you still should not do it. (Before I get to those, again, why does the punishment have to be from God? What about legal punishment? I do not have to argue against the existence of God, but if I successfully divorce Him from the resolution, my opponent's arguments become invalid.) For example, let's say you were a cattle farmer, and you let all your cattle devour everything from a common grazing area. This brings you and them happiness. However, it destroys the common area and prevents others from eating there. So what, you might say. You still reaped the benefits. But then, after repeated processes, the commons no longer provides the nourishment. You've lost a valuable ground for resources by valuing yourself over everyone else. (This type of experiment is called the Tragedy of the Commons [4], and it applies well to global warming today). You were not punished for your actions, which made you happy, but they made you and everyone else suffer in the long run. Most of my opponent's arguments also lost the idea of God, which is central to his resolution. I ask the voters to note this. I look forward to my opponent's responses in the next round. [1] http://web.nmsu.edu... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.globalpost.com... [4] http://www.princeton.edu...