God is not Required for Moral Reasoning

I'm sorry, but my opponent is still very confused. Kant's categorical imperative is not a "trump card" on three accounts. First, it is open to the criticism that it is still a subjective form of morality in that the particulars of the maxim depend on the individual - i.e. it is not logically incoherent for a sadomasochist to will that it be a universal maxim that all persons cut themselves. Second, like other forms of rule-utilitarianism, it must collapse into act-utilitarianism with the only applicable universal maxim being "maximize probable benefit." Third, it is certainly possible that the particulars of any maxim uttered in the categorical imperative could ACCORD with God's law and thus negate it as an exception to religious morality. Therefore, it is clear that Kant's categorical imperative has no standing as a "trump card." Responses: >> "Okay, so where did utility, subjectivity, convention, and the beliefs BEHIND THESE IDEAS come from?" The beliefs behind these ideas do not require religious principles. What kind of religious principle could possibly explain the notion that people should act how they saw fit (subjectivism). The ideas behind these ways of evaluating situations with moral import are not connected to religious principles at all, and often run counter to religious principles. The notion that they are based on religion is clearly false, since they deliver counter-religious results. >> "I myself am Hindu. In our "church" we learn all about morality and what is right/wrong to do" My opponent has conceded the debate with this line. If he is Hindu, he does not believe in God, yet considers himself capable of moral reasoning. >> "My opponent says to appeal to ignorance. My statement clearly is not ridiculous. If morality does not come from god, then where does it come from." Appeal to ignorance is a logical fallacy. Statements that meet the criteria for this fallacy, which yours did, are inadmissible in argumentation. Furthermore, I have already provided three alternative systems for where morality comes from - subjectivism, conventionalism, and utlitarianism. As you yourself said, morality is not taught in schools. But that fact has nothing to do with where the ideas that let us describe morality come from. Also, whether or not schools are a "bread based system" is not pertinent to this debate and is thus another fallacy - red herring. >> "So, we now know that no child will google Kant's categorical imperative, and since morality is determined from childhood, the only thing at that age that preaches morality is religion, and in essence, god." Since children can't properly conceptualize morality ANYWAY, your sentence is meaningless. Furthermore, Kant's system of morality is not the only one. This line of reasoning involves begging the question, appeal to ignorance, and appeal to improper authority - in short - a terrible piece of debating. One could EASILY imagine someone teaching their children morality as a function of securing the best possible outcome for the most people. That is a moral system completely independent of God. >> "this is showing that religion is the basis of morality, and god is the basis of religion. So, indirectly, god is the basis of morality." My opponent has shown no such thing. He has simply asserted that religious principles are the basis for morality with is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the evidence I presented in the first round. Though he may wish it were the case, his conjecture is NOT evidence that refutes my claim. ************************************************ My opponent has yet to refute my claim. He states that religious principles are the basis for moral reasoning. However, I have presented several cases against this point: 1) Fact - children have shown they are capable of moral reasoning without God's assistance. 2) Fact - Atheists are capable of moral reasoning without God's assistance. 3) Fact - Hindus. Buddhists, Daoists, etc... are all capable of moral reasoning without God's assistance. He has not rebutted ANY of these claims, the presence of any ONE of is enough to secure the resolution. For him to win this debate, he must demonstrate that moral reasoning cannot take place without appealing to God in some fashion. He seems not to understand this prerogative, and has not put forth ANY evidence to support his claims. He has asserted without a source or reason that morality is dependent on religion. I'm sorry - but your conjecture is NOT a source. Furthermore, he has supported his position by asking where else morality comes from. I have provided four alternative positions (non-cognitivism, utilitarianism, subjectivism, and conventionalism), yet he has rebutted none of these points. Thus, it is clear that my opponent has not addressed my argument at all, except in the sense of "NUH-UH, you're wrong!" Unfortunately for him, this is not a valid method of debate. AFFIRMED.