Morality is determined by the individual

Not sure why, but my teacher instincts lead me to want to start this round off by addressing my opponents challenge that “literal ideas” cannot be tested like literal physical facts can. Actually you can test ideas in philosophy, its called the Socratic Method, or even variations of it can be used to test the truth of anyone’s given “morality”. I when debating another search for the base things that uphold what it is you believe that I disagree with until I find a link that I too believe also. Then using what we both agree on I use logic to point out the inconsistencies with your main position we started out debating. That’s a way to test a philosophy or idea or perception on morality if it is truth or not. You can also do this on your own beliefs by self checking how your many beliefs match up when you think about them together and what logical is consistent with each other. For example I examine my belief that life should be protected when thinking about abortion, but logical see I’m not for protecting in the case of the death penalty. So I must re-examine the reason for the exemption with abortion for I do want it protected and find its actually “innocent life should be protected” that I believe in. So unless you plan to not only propose that its not just morality that determined by the individual but logic as well, then the notion that ideas cannot be tested like any other real existent fact is debunked. Moving on….. For the record, yes I am personally defending that morality exist just so there’s no confusion. It exists, its objective and its determined by the all perfect divine creator. When I make arguments under the bullet ‘A’ last round about it being an illusion that was under the hypothetical ‘if’ it were not like an objective fact ‘then’ it would just be an illusion. To your response to ‘B’ “No. I have pre-thought out the morals I accept. I will not brake them regardless of the situation…..” Your either lying or deluded. And I could probably prove this Socratic method style if we had the rounds for me to question your on your system of morals you pre-thought out, and then for some honest answers on your actions relevant to your views. Pretty much everyone when questioned will say lying is wrong, and stealing. And then they will admit they have lied and even taken little things. By all means I commend you for setting it as a goal to not brake your accepted morals in all situations but it’s the kind of lofty goal your not equipped to honestly say you can/do succeed at doing. If you could you’d be the second person ever to live to do so. The first was Jesus and he was god incarnate. Talking about free choice a little deeper for a second, lets return to your response to my lying example…. “"I determine my morality" so when I say lying is bad it really is for me according to you and yet I lie." “Con may lie in certain conditions. That is Cons morality. Con chose that. I may think that evil or wrong because of my morality.” "Its not because of any change in system I just lack the discipline to follow through with what is right always." “So con finds it "right" to not always go through moral deliberation. Since con acts this way he find it "Right" or correct since otherwise why else would he act this way.” You way too quickly brush over this. Go ahead and answer the question “why else would he act this way?”. I gave the why else to you, but you didn’t get it so I will try again to explain because this is a cardinally important point to this debate. When you ask that just what do you mean by “free”. As in “free from what?”. Some facts to consider when answering that… A) Intoxicated people are not considered to be of sound mind in any courtroom B) There are drugs used by rapist sometimes to do what is called “date rape”. The sex that occurs after the date kind of seems consensual but the women under the drugs are not of sound mind either and its “rape” in every since. C) When angered chemicals like adrenaline affect judgment in the brain leaving ones choices often to be limited to “fight or flight” D) Mood can affect choices as well I could go on and list other examples of choices being affected by chemical and environmental like stuff but I think you get the pitcher. To simplify referring to them all I will call them animal instincts or substances that manipulate the animal instincts. They exist within all of us and can often corrupt our actions apart from the choices we would make in sounder minds. Without Christ’s Saving grace we are ultimately enslaved to those animal instincts and desirers with our choices and actions. Its key to understand the nature of our choices and our animal instincts effects on them to understand your wrong when you say “Con choose that, I may think that choice evil…” I don’t choose anything when I brake from my morality, and neither do you. Choosing involves thinking under a sound mind, and to be a free choice and free thoughts to think to make the choice they have to un-altered by the chemicals that control our animal impulses. This does not happen for any of us 100% of the time. It does some of the time, but not all the time. No one is perfect. You cannot just proclaim for me that I find it “right” to not always “undergo moral deliberation”. That’s just not true, your jumping to conclusions again. I do find it “right” to “undergo moral deliberation” at all times. Lack of discipline and success at following through with that belief does not change that. Not while I have every right to take an authoritative to tone to state that about what MY morals values are, what about for yours? After all you seem to have personally been testifying that in the event you ever act in a contrary way to your regular moral values then in that instance your morals are literally different in that time. It seems to be the only defense to the charge that you don’t always obey your morals. And since you have the Gaul to tell me that is what happens concerning MY seeming moral inconsistencies so it must be your explanation for YOURS If that’s how you say your morality that you have works than you have NOTHING. For thought to considered a rational and intelligent in the sense that an animal is not intelligent and a human is, it has to be above the whims of at least your own emotions if your going to call thought produced about morality a free one. And because you have NOTHING, then you have no morality to be considered as being determined by you, or your free will, your free choice. Now a system of morals that comes from god and is recorded in the bible, this is above me and its above you. It remains the same no matter what our current whimsy is. Lying is bad even when we ourselves lie. Hate is bad of me even when I’m hating certain horrible people. These moral truths came from the only one who can be trusted to have the knowledge of what is morals for his judgment is uncorrupted by any animal instincts because God is not affected by the natural world, and his knowledge is not corrupted by ignorance of any details to any circumstances as well. So to summarize the highlights of this rounds…. 1) Ideas like morality can be tested 2) The above holds true as long as logic is held as self-evident that it’s the same for all 3) I only argued morality as not existing as a consequence to “if” it were not objective 4) I’d be willing to prove you are not moral by your own moral standards. 5) I don’t think anyone believes you have never done anything bad in your life. All people have 6) Animal instincts corrupts and enslaves our choices so the “free-ness” of your choices are not self-evident 7) It’s possible for me to be bad and brake my morals. It does not become good just because I broke them 8) You do not have ANYTHING if (7) is not true for you thus you determine no morality for yourself. 9) The all perfect supernatural God can be the only legit source of what morality is. I await my opponent’s response.