azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

III. Morality Defined:Morality is concerned with our beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong motives, attitudes, and conduct. When an ethicist studies morality, certain value concepts are the center of focus: "right," "wrong," "good," "bad," "ought,""duty," "virtuous," "blameworthy," and so on" ( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p. viii).IV. Set of necessary and/or sufficient conditions for defining morality.1. A judgment is moral only if it is accepted as a supremely authoritative, overriding guide to conduct, attitudes, and motives.The point of this criterion is that morality must have top priority over all else in our lives. In this way, morality is contrasted with mere custom, etiquette, and, perhaps, law.2. A judgment is moral only if it is a prescriptive imperative which recommends actions, attitudes, and motives and not merely a factual description about actions, attitudes, and motives.This criterion expresses the distinction between a mere descriptive, factual "is" and a prescriptive, evaluative "ought" and identifies morality with the latter.3. A judgment is moral only if it is universalizable; that is, if it applies equally to all relevantly similar situations.The main point of this criterion is to express the conviction that moral judgments must be impartially applied to moral situations by taking into account all of the morally relevant features of the situation.4. A judgment is moral only if it makes reference to human flourishing, human dignity, the welfare of others, the prevention of harm, and the provision of benefit.Inasmuch as this criterion makes exclusive reference to human beings, it is clearly inadequate as a necessary condition for morality.( J. P. Moreland, Norman L. Geisler, "The Life and Death Debate: Moral Issues of Our Time", p.x)
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Morality is concerned with our beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong motives, attitudes, and conduct.agreedWhen an ethicist studies morality, certain value concepts are the center of focus: "right," "wrong," "good," "bad," "ought,""duty," "virtuous," "blameworthy," and so on"okNumber 4 is the one that resonates best with me.Are we on the subject of how morality IS understood or how it ought to be understood? loltoo fun hope you prod me further.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Of Objective morality:There is what we think (based on imperfect understanding) to be good actions. Then there is reality which is independent of what we think. If we admit when we are wrong as opposed to jumping into some pseudo-philosophical justification about how nothing is in and of itself wrong or we cannot with good certainty know wrong from right. The in my view we have a healthy understanding of Objective morality.I think that it is possible to err to both the side of relativism AND absolutism. I think that "worldview" think is an expression of absolutism.Ok theres more
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Ok. societies and individuals do decide what they think is bad or good, But that decision making is not what makes something bad or good. My take is that what makes something bad is if it promotes injury and sickness, what makes something good is if it promotes health.All we can do is articulate what we hope are well formed standards. Since we do not understand cause and effect well enough, we still do things that seem good at the time but later on we found out differently. We have to continue working to improve our standards. And yes I do think that we (people) are soley responsible for how well they are developed.As to the scientific method being useless in this process, I am not convinced. However I am aware that the scientific method's nature is that it is a method not a reason or purpose. It tells us how to study not what to study. Our focus of study I posit is based on religious sentiments. It is religious behavior that addresses the underlying purpose of all our efforts.So you think that the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to help us develop moral standards that are in better harmony with what actually is bad and good?that's what you get from me this time?? that's the best response I can muster tonight.. we'll see if it is provocative enough for continued discussion.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"Ok. societies and individuals do decide what they think is bad or good, But that decision making is not what makes something bad or good. My take is that what makes something bad is if it promotes injury and sickness, what makes something good is if it promotes health"First, I would argue that when people are asked "Why do people believe what they believe" they would give different answers that can fit into four categories:a. Sociological reasonsb. Psychological reasonsc. Religious reasonsd. Philosophical reasonsHowever, I think we need to find which of the four categories is the best as far as given adequate grounds for justifications of beliefs. I submit that neither a, b, or c does that.Second, there has to be an understanding what we mean by "truth" and how is truth know. I think that you would agree with me that apathy and ignorance can be fatal. In other words, " I don't know" and "I don't care". That being said, I would like to define what truth is.I. Truth Defined:I think that truth can be defined as "that which corresponds to its object" or "that which describes an actual state of affairs." A. Truths about Truth:1. Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge. (i.e. gravity existed prior to Newton)2. Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change. (i.e. when we begin to believe the earth was round instead of flat, the truth about the earth didn't change, only our belief about the earth changed)3. Truth is transcultural; if something is true, it is true for all people, in all places, at all times. (i.e. 2+2=4 for everyone, everywhere, at every time).4. Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it. (i.e. an arrogant person does not make the truth he professes false and a humble person does not make the error he professes true.)5. All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that appear to be relative are really absolute. (i.e. "I feel cold on January 7, 2009" may appear to be relative truth, but it is actually absolute true for everyone, everywhere that I had the sensation of cold on that day.)6. Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held. In short, contrary beliefs are possible, but contrary truths are not possible. We can believe everything is true, but we cannot make everything true. Do you agree or disagree so far? If not, I would still proceed with cross-examining what you have posted, lol. By the way, I apologize for "dispute" tag. I wanted it to be "support" since it is just putting forth info rather than rebuttal.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I submit that neither a, b, or c does that.I submit that all of these factor into the formation of beliefs.I think we need to find which of the four categories is the bestI think we need to consider how these are inseparably interrelated factors."that which corresponds to its object"I favor something like "that which improves awareness"1. Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge. (i.e. gravity existed prior to Newton)This calls to mind the "tree falling in the forest" dilemma.2. Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change.I suppose there is some merit to that. I am not sure why you are making this truth claim.when we begin to believe the earth was round instead of flat, the truth about the earth didn't change, only our belief about the earth changedConversely it was once true that "flat earth" was the prevalent belief. That is no longer true, so in a sense truth has changed. The truth about what most people believe.Truth is transculturaluniversal truths are transcultural. But you must admit that some of the truths specifically related to a culture indeed do not apply well cross culturally.4. Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.I don't disagree with that but why do you mention it?5. All truths are absolute truths.I object due to a sense of certainty that might develop where doubt might be appropriate.6. Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held."Women are not legally allowed to vote in the US." This was once a fact. Today this is not a fact. Perhaps this is due to changing beliefs.Do you agree or disagree so far?hard to say..I have agreed with some of your propositions. I have never agreed whole heartedly with all of anyones propositions, even my own. :)
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I submit that all of these factor into the formation of beliefs1. They may be factors of forming beliefs, but neither a, b, c, is adequate as a method to justify beliefs: a. Sociological Reasons: 1. Parents, Friends, Society, Culture. -I submit that all of these can sometimes be wrong. b. Psychological Reasons: 1. Comfort, peace of mind, meaning, purpose, hope, identity. -These can not be test of truth.  Example: a. A junkie might be temporarily comforted by a certain type of drug, but that drug might actually kill him.c. Religious Reasons: 1. Scripture, Pastor/Priest, Guru, Rabbi, Imam, Church.  -We need proofs outside scripture to help discover which if either, is true.d. Philosophical Reasons: 1. Consistency, Coherence, Completeness (best explanation of all evidence) -I do not mean someone's opinions, but the classical sense of the word where philosophy means finding truth through logic, evidence, and science. I think that something is worth believing if it's rational, if it's supported by evidence, and if it best explains all the data.Pondering and working on the other responses.......
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.I don't disagree with that but why do you mention it?"1. Sometimes in a debate (I would prefer the word "dialogue"), a person can be emotionally charged and cloud one from determining if the "truth claims" are true or false. I do not think we are an exception. :)
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"I think we need to find which of the four categories is the bestI think we need to consider how these are inseparably interrelated factors"1. I am not denying that they are factors of forming beliefs, but that they are not the adequate method of justifying beliefs.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"that which corresponds to its object""I favor something like "that which improves awareness"1. I favor beliefs that are supported by evidence, science, logic, history, etc. You even mentioned science, right? Now, that is not to suggest that the scientific method is the ONLY tool to gather evidence. Right questions requires the right method to answer them. It is possible that people try to answer questions with the wrong method. It would be like trying to unscrew a nut with a hammer.2. It is true, we start with the set of assumptions/beliefs. However, it is another thing altogether to discover if they correspond with reality.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held""Women are not legally allowed to vote in the US." This was once a fact. Today this is not a fact. Perhaps this is due to changing beliefs"  1. Proposition: noun 1 a statement expressing a judgement or opinion. 2. Fact: noun 1 a thing that is indisputably the case. 2 (facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report. 3. Affair: noun 1 an event of a specified kind or that has previously been referred to. 2 a matter that is a particular person’s responsibility. 3 a love affair. 4 (affairs) matters of public interest and importance. [1]4. Correspond: 1 a : to be in conformity or agreement5. Truth: 1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy[2]  1. There are two facts here: Past and Present: a. Women are legally allowed to vote b. Women were not legally allowed to vote According to the correspondence theory, truth is defined as” that which corresponds to its object" or "that which describes an actual state of affairs." J.P. Moreland argued that, “A proposition is not made true by someone's thinking or expressing it and it is not made true by our ability to determine that it is true. Evidence allows us tell if a proposition is true or false, but reality is what makes a proposition true or false.” [2] It depends what your proposition is, right? If your proposition was, "women are not legally allowed to vote", than it depends if your are referring to the past or present. Since your proposition was "Women are not legally allowed to vote" that is obviously false, (present tense) right? There has to be a match between the proposition and the fact that corresponds to the specific proposition.Note: [1] Compact Oxford English Dictionary Online[2]Merriam-Webster Online. 11 January 2010
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"All truths are absolute truths""I object due to a sense of certainty that might develop where doubt might be appropriate"1. Is that absolutely true?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

neither a, b, c, is adequate as a method to justify beliefs:Granted. But isn't it true that philosophical considerations (especially as you have defined them) more than encompass a,b and c?I have been thinking about the relation between religion and philosophy. I think an individual's religion consists of those specific principles of philosophy that they accept, try to live up to and promote.Do you find anything objectionable about that?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

hmmm :/....I need to ponder on that before answering. Indeed, a thought provoker.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

of relativism:Where did you get your information about the characteristics of relativism? You think of it like terminal fence sitting? Someone who holds to he "worldview" of moral relativism as you define it never feels fit to make a firm judgment?Just trying to see if I am getting your points?of cultural relativism:The phrasing is confusing to me. there are some conclusions that you assert relativists make. And I struggle to see any meaningful distinction between this and plain old relativism.Of Conventionalism and Ethical Relativism:Again I see no significant difference between these supposedly different "forms" of relativism.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

of relativism:The Encyclopedia explains, "Moral relativism, put very broadly, states that certain moral features vary relative to certain phenomena" [1] It is very broad because, "relativism,...is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else."[2]"of cultural relativism:"The Encyclopedia explains it as, "the theory that culture shapes beliefs, provides concepts, organizes value systems, and informs and orients human behavior."[3] "Ethical Relativism": a.ka. "Individual subjectivism: existential choice"The Encyclopedia explains it as, "...people create their own values for themselves, and different people (even within the same culture) may choose quite different values." [4][1] "Relativism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Thomson Gale. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .[2] Swoyer,Chris, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). [3] Swoyer, Chris. "Subjectivism." New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 2005. The Gale Group Inc. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .[4] "Cultural Relativism." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Thomson Gale. Encyclopedia.com. 9 Jan. 2010 .[5] Powell, Doug. "Holman Quick Source: Guide to Christian Apologetics", p.75-77 (For "conventionalism, which I already typed)Doug argues that there is a contrast between "conventionalism" and cultural relativism. Conventionalism claims that society decides what is right and wrong, where as cultural relativism does NOT make such a claim. Rather, it claims that there is no right or wrong. He goes on further by stating that, "The majority rules and morality becomes what is legal. That is to say, the law defines what morality and if society were to change a law, it would not change from immoral to moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from one rule to another. It would simpoly be different, not better or worse."
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"Someone who holds to he "worldview" of moral relativism as you define it never feels fit to make a firm judgment?"Worldview: "A set of assumptions or beliefs about reality that affect how we think and how we live" [1]1. No. I believe that relativism is self-refutting, unpractical, and mostly no one lives like that. They may say they do believe, but in reality they do not.2. What I am arguing is that neither of these "worldviews" seem to convince me that it satisfies their “truth claims“. That is to say, there is no correspondence between a belief or a proposition and a fact or a state of affairs. Which is why I provided the definition of truth and the truths of truth. The issue is which worldviews is adequate that justifies beliefs. Bertrand Russell actually popularized the term "correspondence theory". J.P. Morealnd, explained the theory this way, "In its simplest form, the correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case." [2] So, false beliefs fails to correspond to anything.3. I think that you would agree with me that Truth and belief are two different things. We can believe everything is true, but we cannot make everything true. I think, it is important to know the difference. Worldviews require faith. Facts are also central to all worldviews because they all make truth claims. Therefore, since all worldviews makes "truth claims", than there is the need to have facts (evidences) in order to be evaluated and investigated to see if it is true or false.[1] Cosgrove, P., Mark, "Foundations of Christian Thought," p. 19[2] http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000911.html
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Worldview: "A set of assumptions or beliefs about reality that affect how we think and how we live" [1]This use of the term "worldview" is what I am uncomfortable with. We must understand someone's thoughts/beliefs pretty thoroughly to be able to speak meaningfully of their "worldview". To address someone's worldview then, how many of the persons underlying assumptions/beliefs must be taken into account?false beliefs fails to correspond to anythingI disagree with that. they correspond with real events that are poorly understood.I think that you would agree with me that Truth and belief are two different things..Your right, I do agree with you here.all worldviews make truth claims.The only claim relativism makes about truth is that it is so often poorly understood, that we must remain self critical.For the sake of argument let's say that it's fair to call relativism a worldview. You say it is self refuting and that mostly no one lives like that.If a worldview is self refuting, than why spend such effort refuting it. Obviously it's not obvious if you must go to such effort to point it out.Thinking relativistically, truth does not exist objectively, but only in relation to what is sought after. There must be a perspective for truth to enlighten. The statement "Traveling due west from Arizona will get you to New Mexico" is true. But there are other truths about ways to get from here to there that one might be better off being aware of. So relativistic thinking better leaves us open to improve our perception of more beneficial truths.The relativist says "I have found a truth" where the absolutist says "I have found the truth."The statement: "Don't believe everything that you think." can be interpreted in different ways. 1. Don't trust your perception of truth at all or 2. Remain self criticalPlenty of people "live by" #2 but I agree that regarding #1 people rarely live like that. Institutionalization may be required for those afflicted by #1If the attempt is to counter the most prolific misunderstandings related to truth. I think that absolutism deserves more blame than relativism partly since false certainty is much more common and generally problematic than excessive doubt.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

The Golden Rule, do unto other as you would want them to do you....Confucius
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

@atypician"So you think that the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to help us develop moral standards that are in better harmony with what actually is bad and good?"1. I believe that I can answer that if you bear with me and let us go through the categories and see if we can agree which is the best method of finding "truth". I strongly do not think that a, b, or c does that. Shall we?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

My goal right now is to see:1. If we can agree on the definition of truth and truths about truth.2. Determing the adequate method of finding truth.Do you agree on the definition provided/truths of truth?Are you willing to explore thses categories?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

1. If we can agree on the definition of truth and truths about truth.I would be floored..2. Determing the adequate method of finding truth."THE adequate method" hmm.. The method I value as most adequate is the scientific method.Do you agree on the definition provided/truths of truth?I suspect (I haven't read it yet) that there are aspects of how you articulate it that I can support and others that I will take issue with. Check back later for my response to that post.Are you willing to explore thses categories?If I think either of us are benefiting from this, or anyone might benefit by reading it. I will continue.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I agree with Flame. You moral relativists have no leg to stand on and here's why.Suppose you consider the moral truth that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. This is universal under these points.1) torturing a helpless child that cannot defend themselves is considered child abuse.2) Child abuse is a universal crime no matter where you are in the world.Abuse is wrong no matter what--even if you get off on it. Why? Because the cons outweight the pros. Any type of abuse would psychologically damage and physically damage the one being abused. Just because it is fun for you doesn't mean the victim is having any fun being abused.Empathy is an important part of morality no matter where you are in the world.Without empathy--morality wouldn't exist.Without morality--there would be no sense of what is justand chaos would ensue.So there must be a law that governs what one ought to to and what oneshould not do and that law is the universal moral law.Enough said. Try telling this person who is in a philosophy class that universal morality doesn't exist--and I'll also think you're trying to sell me the brooklyn bridge in China.