Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

INTRODUCTION: Once again, I would like to give thanks to Swyrgt for his contribution. I have read his arguments in other debates and indeed they are thought provokers. On to the debate. Swryght makes several points that needs to be addressed. I will first define some terms, present my opponent's syllogistic argument, my rebuttals and contentions. I. Definitions: Metaethics: The philosophy of ethics dealing with the meaning of ethical terms, the nature of moral discourse, and the foundations of moral principles.[1] Source: 1 a : a generative force : cause b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : beginning (2) : one that initiates : author; also : prototype, model (3) : one that supplies information.[2] Archetype: 1 : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example. 2 :idea 1a 3 : an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual.[3] Sufficient: adequate for the purpose; enough: sufficient proof; sufficient protection. [4] Reason: a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.[5] All: 2 : every member or individual component of. [6] Natural Law: "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct” [7] Better: more advantageous or effective Naturalism: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena. [8]Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. [9]Positivism: : a theory that theology and metaphysics are earlier imperfect modes of knowledge and that positive knowledge is based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences.[10] II. Swrygt's Syllogistic Argument:1. The sense of "conscience" or intuitive morality is better explained psychologically than theologically.2. Intuition about morality stem from psychological archetypes or mental-instincts.3. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to suppose that a God is the source of moral intuitions.III. Rebuttals:A. My opponent made this statement and I quote,"All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.” First ,it is an acknowledgement that intuition is a genuine knowledge of right and wrong. Secondly, that every individual of the human race has access to this genuine knowledge. According to the principle of contradiction, “It is impossible for something to both to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect.[11] In other words, he clearly negated his own statement which was, "However, I don't think this implies either of the following propositions: 1) There is a universal moral law. It is saying something that does not correspond to the objective facts. Natural law is defined as, " a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as inherent in all human beings and forming a basis for human conduct" which Swryght conceded. Thus, my premise that there is a universal moral law stands.B. Answers people give mainly falls in four categories: Sociological reasons, psychological reasons, religious reasons, and philosophical reasons. My opponent choose psychological reasons. I have to assume that he meant definition (3) which is "an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual.” Since he did not explain C.G. Jung's theory of archetypes than allow me to share a summary:  "term introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung to represent a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain. It is distinct from the personal unconscious, which arises from the experience of the individual. According to Jung, the collective unconscious contains archetypes, or universal primordial images and ideas." [12]I think I can safely say that we are in agreement that "All human beings have an intuitive sense of right and wrong." However, Swryght denies that there is any supernatural significance by clearly saying that it can be effectively explained from a psychological viewpoint (naturalism). In his debate with Prof. Taylor (Athiest), Prof. William Lane Craig quotes Taylor's book, "Ethics, Faith, and Reason", "The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.... Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war...or the violation of human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion." He than concludes, "Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning."[13]1. Non-theistic Ethical Theories will be incomplete and Inadequate:We can have ethical systems that make no reference to God, but it is incomplete and inadequate because they still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations. Spiegel made this point, “Meaning and value transcend the physical world and must therefore find their source in the supernatural.”[14] There is a connection between God and morality that even some atheists and skeptics have noted it:a. “Atheist Michael Martin argues that, “theists give the same reasons as atheists for condemning rape: it violates the victim's rights, damages society. What Martin really means is that atheists can be good without believing in God, but they would not be good (have intrinsic worth, moral responsibility, etc.) without God. (Indeed, nothing would exist without him.)” [15]b. “The late atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie said that moral properties are "queer" given naturalism "if there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.” [15]c. "Agnostic Paul Draper observes, "A moral world is very probable on theism." [15]C. Occam's Razor favors Theism  My opponent made the statement, that "the theory that moral intuition is psychological is sufficient to explain the phenomenon and appealed to Occam's razor. However, he is clearly misapplying this principle in two ways. First a simple definition of what Occam's Razor is:"Occam's razor is a principle which is frequently used outside of ontology, e.g., by philosophers of science in an effort to establish criteria for choosing from among theories with equal explanatory power.* [16] In other words, in an attempt to account some phenomenon, the simplest hypothesis, other things being equal should be preferred. Now, here are the two ways Swryght abused the principle:1. He assumed that both hypothesis were of equal explanatory power. I have given the reasons why it is of no equal explanatory power. That is, incomplete and inadequate because his hypothesis still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations.2. He assumed that my hypothesis is false. Applying Occam's razor does not prove that a hypothesis is false. It is fallacious to make a bold statement such as, "that positing a God as the source of this psychological fact is to multiply entities beyond necessity. D. Additional Problems1. Not all beliefs can be scientifically verifiable Positivism is basically the methodology driving naturalism. If my opponent believes that all knowledge must be scientifically verifiable than he must be aware that it is self-refutting since all beliefs can not be scientifically verifiable. Thus, by the positivist's own standard, positivism must be rejected as unknowable. [17]2. Science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it.Most of our beliefs fall outside the realm of science. Spiegel quotes Holmes Rolston, University Distinguished Professor of philosophy at Colorado State University, "Science is never the end of the story, because science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it....After science, we still need help deciding what to value; what is right and wrong, good and evil, how to behave as we cope. The end of life still lies in its meaning, the domain of religion and ethics." [18]Conclusion:Swryght declared that there is no basis or cause for belief that God is the Author of the universal moral law (the sense of right and wrong) because it can be effectively explained psychologically. That is, the foundation of moral principles can be verified scientifically. Therefore, denying supernatural significance. However, this is not the case because: 1. Non-theistic Ethical Theories will be incomplete and inadequate because they still do not tell us why human beings have intrinsic value, rights, and moral obligations.2. If my opponent believes that all knowledge must be scientifically verifiable than he must be aware that it is self-refutting since all beliefs can not be scientifically verifiable. Thus, the positivist's own standard, positivism must be rejected as unknowable. 3. Science cannot teach humans what they most need to know: the meaning of life and how to value it. 4. It is the domain of religion and ethics (The philosophy of ethics dealing with the meaning of ethical terms, the nature of moral discourse, and the foundations of moral principles) and not science. In other words, it is not a scientific issue.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaethics [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/source [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archetype [4] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sufficient [5] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Reason  [6] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all [7] http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/naturallaw?view=uk [8] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism [9] http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/supernatural?view=uk [10] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/positivism [11] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/ [12] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32765/archetype [13] http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-taylor4.html [14] Spiegel, S. James, "The Making of an Atheist" pg. 34[15]http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2832571/k.7E46/The_Moral_Argument_for_Gods_Existence.htm  [16] http://skepdic.com/occam.html[17] Spiegel, S. James, "The Making of an Atheist" pg. 28-29[18] Spiegel, S. James, "The Making of an Atheist" pg.28