Individual Ought To Believe In an External Moral Force.

Hello PonticComet, Thank you for a well thought out and clear opening argument, I hope I am worthy opponent of calibre. Now onwards with the debate, firstly I will make my independent opening argument, and then, with permission I will address some of your points as they are very good and in my view deserve discussion. Opening Argument The supposition of this argument is very clear, and worth considering. We as individuals should put faith in the existence of some supernatural force that exists outside(Or Transcends) the Physical Universe in which cannot be tested. This Force, Essence, Being, ETC is a force capable of moral judgement and intervention in the human world. If we did such a thing, what would be the point in our own system of justice? If I was sat watching a murder, a rape, a torturing, of a fellow prime mate, if I truly had faith in an external force, capable of intervening, what would be the point of me risking myself to save the victim, if this external moral force is so prevalent, why bother? Let’s take a rather harsh but significant example. Please see the link below http://news.bbc.co.uk... Why should we try to prevent actions such as the horrible atrocities as this man committed if after all, there will be a divine intervention? Or divine justice? Will there be and most importantly, what do you tell his victim, beaten, tortured, raped for 24 years, are you going to tell her that there is a divine moral force that will balance this out eventually? Imagine how she would have prayed for such a thing. Nothing came, for 24 years. It cannot be tested Here is a statement, a preamble, of the universal declaration of Human rights made in 1948. “...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. —Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948” Here is a list of conventions that are entirely down to the hard work and dedication of Human rights lawyers over the last century. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (adopted 1979, entry into force: 1981) United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (adopted 2006, entry into force: 2008) International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW or more often MWC) (adopted 1990, entry into force: 2003) These are no small achievements, they are not supernatural, they are not untestable, they are some of the best things man has ever created for the sake of human progress, and in future generations, they can grow, change adapt and become better with each generation. Do not think that these are minor actions, to say any of this is supernatural is to say that the men and women who drove towards these conventions were not acting out of human dignity, but being driven by a supernatural force, that makes a mockery of all of the work they did, as though they were somehow not responsible for it. To say any of these are supernatural would be to disregard the centuries, generations of suffering inflicted upon humans before this, where was the divine supernatural morality when 6 million Jews, Homosexuals, Minorities and Disabled people were slaughtered in the 1930s and 1940s. Which leads me nicely onto. It doesn’t actually exist I submit that the evidence provided above leads us to the most likely conclusion. It does not exist, the assertion is that we ought to believe in it, but ought we to believe in something for which there is no evidence? Morality comes from centuries of development and work by good people who understand that we don’t get any morality without discussion, debate, rationality, and a lot of very hard work. In the name of all that these people have done, I submit not only should we not vote for this assertion, but we should vote for the truth, and the truth is this work is theirs, they deserve the credit, not the untestable, unchallengeable, supernatural. Morality is beneficial *and innate* to mankind, *thanks to evolution.* Yes I agree, it absolutely is. So beneficial, that over centuries of evolution, morality has become innate with in us, tribes with, what we might call empathy or at least the golden rule (which we don’t even teach children) are so successful that it is a deep part of not only human interaction, but primate interaction. I refer you to the following studies, one specific (Hamilton) and several others encompassing game theory, which provides explanation as to how mankind might act, or be perceived to act, morally, and why groups that apply this successfully are so, culminating in the modern man. Kin selection or ‘inclusive fitness’ theory (Hamilton 1964) In Hamilton's model, natural selection favors the gene for altruism whenever r × b > c. This equation has become known as Hamilton's Rule and can be distilled down to this: if a gene(s) for altruism is to evolve, then the cost (c) of altruism must somehow be balanced by compensating benefits to the altruist. In Hamilton's model, the cost is balanced by benefits (b) accrued by blood relatives of the altruist, because relatives may carry the gene for altruism as well. But relatives have only some probability, r, of carrying the gene in question, and so the benefits received must be weighted by that probability. The link below contains this study under the title W.D. Hamilton http://www.genetics.org... Selection pressures leading to teamwork, reciprocal altruism (Trivers 1971; Maynard Smith 1982; Axelrod 1984) and indirect reciprocity (Alexander 1987; Joyce 2006) These studies really culminate in Game Theory, originally designed for economics but proceeding to be applied successfully into Biology. http://en.wikipedia.org... Morality is beneficial and innate to other species, again, thank you evolution. How does this external force proposed deal with other species? http://www.bbc.co.uk... We can scientifically assess the outcome of a decision made by species such as the swan demonstrated above, that statistically leads to the best possible outcome, now without redefining morality, one could argue on this evidence, that this morality is innate and acted upon all the time, both in the Human and Non-human animal kingdom. Now sir, if you do not mind I will address some specific points you made very well. “Who Determines Morality? I may have a personal stance on right and wrong and Ben may have another. What is it that makes either of moral doctrine superior to the other? In a Democratic society this ethical clash would be determined by popular majority and then made into law. For Instance if a majority agree that it is malign or “wrong” to commit theft then we will create laws to deter theft. In an Authoritarian society our superior would judge that theft is wrong and he too would put laws into place. I ask you, do all people regard laws put in place as morally sound? Is Justice always served? If the premise that morality leads to human benefit is indeed affirmed then surely our goal should be to maximize adherence to moral doctrine. I propose the following to you, If majority rule determines what is morally sound and the majority elected Adolf Hitler in 1933 does it thus follow that the policies that reflected their convictions were just and beneficial? “ - PonticComet This is exactly my point, sir I submit you again to the proposition, would heaven, or divinity, be just as unchallengeable, just as authoritarian and just as untested as the unchallengeable authority of a dictator, the difference is, we can kill Adolf Hitler, we can’t kill anything you or I might call divine. This would make us slaves to an even more worrying form of dictatorship then the one you rightly speak against. is Justice always served? No, because it is down to us to make it happen, and we are only humans, we are not divine, we make mistakes. But if you assert that justice isn’t always served, and are correct to do so, then how does adding divinity to the equation resolve the issue. I would ask, Justice isn’t always served, why isn’t heaven, the all-powerful doing anything about it? I don’t want a divine authority, I don’t see any evidence for it, and if it does exist then it has some serious questions to answer for overseeing the unnecessary deaths of a new born baby every four seconds. I want a morally that is thought out, reasoned, discussed and improves with time, that is challengeable, changeable and always up for discussion, just as we are now, with respectful discourse. I dedicate this argument to the hundreds of Human Rights lawyers who work tirelessly to oversee this, who do it, not because of divine authority, but because they know it is the moral thing to do, because they know we only have one life, and we are all fellow primates driving for unity and compassion, and there are big questions we must ask of ourselves, what to do with the time we have? How do we build the just city? What is the best compassion to show others? We lose all of those things by referring it up to the divine, it’s hard, I know, I get it, it’s easy to hope and wish for something that would do it all for us. But this is not the case, this will require hard work and dedication. If you are willing to put that work in, to go on that journey with me, then vote against the idea that something else will do it all for us. With respect, Ben