Individual Ought To Believe In an External Moral Force.

Hello PonticComet, Thank you for your response, I will take this opportunity to rebut some of your well made arguments, hopefully with quality to match your own. Divine Intervention and Worldly Justice. I must say, the evidence for human evolution since 1945 is rather scant, this is because evolution is process that takes such a long period of time for primates such as us, either way I am not qualified to support or deny such a position, I do feel it is somewhat superfluous to the thrust of the argument. Perhapes I shall read up on the subject and offer a position in the future. Stalin, exactly my point, there was no balancing force in the universe that enabled Stalin to receive punishment (unless you would debate me on the tantalising subject of Hell) but if we are talking about a force that acts, in this world, to 'right the wrongs' as it were, Stalin is evidence that no such force exists. The truth is not always as we want it to be, and the truth is Stalin, to put it mildly, got away with a lot of wicked acts. Where was the external moral force then, I’ve yet to see evidence of such. If democracy is in retreat as you claim (another debate again!) it adds nothing to the idea that we 'ought to believe' in this force which is acting independently. It is exactly because such things occur that we must act upon our own morality, the rights that I listed in my opening argument that were made by people, for people. The Mohist position, as you state, might well be superior to the principle that I would hold of secular humanism, and now I return a direct question back to you. What is more important - A lie that makes people act morally (as you would perceive it) OR the truth. I submit readers, that no evidence can be found for an external moral force, and all the evidence presented by myself and my opponent thus far suggests the opposite is the case. That the cold hard truth is that there is no external moral force, means we have the tough job of enforcing, upon ourselves, for the good of future generations, the principles outlined in my opening argument. These principles are not a direct result of evolution, but a result of human solidarity, compassion and respect. They are hard to enforce upon ourselves, but in doing so we find far more self respect, than following the orders of a divine force that tells us what is right and wrong. Question responses "PonticComet - Question 1 - Response I also pose a non-rhetorical question to the opposition, How in an universe in which is NOT an universal moral force can there be any morality which is above subjectivity and partiality as which is not destined to be altered in a matter of generations?" This is exactly what my opening position was for, it is destined to be altered by future generations, as we have altered the perception of right and wrong of previous generations. It's not a comfortable feeling, to think there are no absolutes... Or is it? If you believe in an unchallengeable, unchangeable, moral authority, isn't that arbitrary depending upon what this divine moral force decides? I don't want this, I want a it to be challenged, that it can be altered, that it can be reasoned, discussed and thought out just as the universal human rights act was, just as the abolition of slavery was, just as the decision of one individual to donate blood is, links for each below. http://www.un.org... - Universal Human Rights 2 years of UN debate http://en.wikipedia.org... - Abolition of slavery £20,000,000.00 in cost to UK government http://www.blood.co.uk... - Link included should anyone wish to give blood I recommend it Ironically, it requires a little faith, it requires us to make our arguments and make our rights heard based upon secular humanism, solidarity and compassion for fellow primates, hand that down to future generations and say "this is what our world is built upon, this is how far we have come, now you must go further." "PonticComet - Question 2 - Response Imagine I am a very successful criminal, perhaps even the most, I have the politicians on payroll and police bribed(As we may find even today in several parts of the world). I act out of self-interest and I will cease operations if a logical argument can be posed that it is not in my self-interest to continue criminal operations if there is indeed no punishment after death and no of divine intervention." A good question sir, but it doesn't help your point for the following reasons. To act in self interest, in self gain, as this person in the above situation would be doing, is the exact opposite of morality. As you state, there is clearly no divine intervention going on as many people do fit into the category above, none of which receive divine punishment that I am aware of. If they were to act for fear of eternal torture in hell I would submit the following makes this in and of itself immoral. 1. Eternal torture in hell for the above act, I would submit is immoral in and of itself, many would agree with me as the evidence below confirms. 73% of Mexicans, 53% of US citizens, 82% of Francs and even 49% of Russians believe that torture, in all forms should be prohibited. http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com... So if this divine authority is sending people to hell (without a trial by jury of peers a right that humans have established for a long period of time) then it is arguably acting in and of itself in an immoral fashion. Maybe an individual ought to believe in an external immoral force? 2. Acting solely out of self interest is not morality, it is game theory, a logical choice taken for self gain. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu... Questions for the opposition. 1. Can you provide evidence for a divine moral authority acting in the here and now or will you submit that any force must punish people such as those listed above in the 'afterlife'? 2. Can you name me a moral action or statement made, that you can take or make because you believe in a moral authority above humanity, that I cannot make or take because I do not? Question 2 is not of my making, but of Christopher Hitchens in his book 'God is not Great', so the credit for it goes to him. It's very important that the distinction is made. I can still be moral, as an individual without being instructed in the subject by a divine authority. I act out of respect, compassion, humanism and solidarity with my fellow primates. A divine authority takes away our option to be moral by threatening us with punishment, isn't true morality doing right not for self gain, but out of self respect, we loose that by referring morality up to a divine authority. I submit to you readers, it is much more rewarding to be moral without reward or fear of punishment. Thank you for reading. Best Regards, Ben