azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: NO

there would be no dilemma if morality were relativeIncorrect - there is still dilemma in not knowing which course of action will have the more desired outcome over time.The existence of moral dilemmas proves that either a God with objective moral values does not exist or that God judges us based on a morality that we can not access.A simple moral question such as "Is murder justified?" Even the ones that appear simple really aren't. Is the death penalty murder?, how about mercy killing?, killing Hitler?If Osama bin Laden is in a bunker with 10 innocent pregnant women and you can't send in special forces, can you morally bomb the bunker? does the equation change if it is 1 pregnant woman, or 1 million? Would everyone come to the same conclusions as you?The old testament allows eye for an eye, the new testament does not, which one is objectively right?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

it could just as easily be that societal morals that pull in the other direction resonate with you
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"it could just as easily be that societal morals that pull in the other direction resonate with you"Explain.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

if the internal morality was god-given, then how you are raised would not effect it
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"if the internal morality was god-given, then how you are raised would not effect it"1. Granted, that we learn (in part) the moral law from our parents, teachers, and that it helps develop our conscience. But that does not mean that the moral law simply is "a human invention". Rather, we discover this code and that this universal moral law transcends time and culture. But, you do not use reason to discover it, you just know it. Intution is a genuine form of knowledge. Hence, the very word "conscience" in Latin means: "Knowledge within oneself."
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

This argument is completely untenable. Intuition isn't a valid backing in a debate, and further there isn't a single moral law that has remained consistently true in all cultures throughout time.a universal moral law must always be seen as valid or demonstrated as part of a code in all cultures. It must be as a natural law, divorced from the zeitgeist.Can you name a single law, or policy, based or morals, that hasn't been changed, or ignored, or seen favourable at some point?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Killing another human without just cause is an example of universal moral law.Resent use of modern neuro-imaging of the human brain reveals that acting virtuous actually feels good. "Moral" Behavior sends reward-related brain systems into a pleasurable state even more so than the prospect of self-interested gain. The brain's activity in the process can be detected or illuminated using transcranial magnetic stimulation and MRI technologies. As humans struggle to resist doing what is learned to be bad and immoral that are inherent in self view, that regions of the brain fire 'squelch' to interfere with chemically reacted impulses.This can support that the feeling of duty toward general happiness for all is internal for all of us.http://www.neuroquantology.com/repository/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=111:i-didnt-sinit-was-my-brain&catid=99:free-will&Itemid=72 -- with that , and the example let me clarify.How would it be a 'learned' moral that killing without reason is a good thing?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

In the example - you may not tie in: feelings. Anger would not apply. Zero 'rewards' attached.Killing anyone and eveything around you for no reason at all, could not be a learned moral. If you wanted to be alone? nope does not count, there is a goal attached.Someone hands you some very good food.. "Thank you now you die." KILLLet's say someone helps you from falling of a cliff to your death. "woohw - that was a close one, thanks." "Now you die bastard".. Now you push him off the cliff. How does one feel good about that? it does not work like that. Killing other humans is something that we know to be wrong. We do not want to die ourselves. (most of the time) It's not a learned thing. If it hurts me it may hurt others is not a hard concept for a human to grasp.I don't see it. How could this be taught to be a good? It can't.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

At exorb:"Killing another human without just cause is an example of universal moral law."What about times of war? I know you could argue that soldiers are trained in propaganda that teaches an "Us versus Them" mindset, but battlefields are dynamic and sometimes a soldier will instinctually shoot a non-combatant. What about riots and large mobs of people? They will sometimes kill people, with little provocation.Taking an extreme example, what about some of our historic genocides and butcherings of towns? I refer to cases where people invade a peaceful town, invade homes and use a machete or gun to snuff out all life, even though they must face their victims and must deep down know that an unarmed child is no threat, an unarmed mother isn't an enemy, etc.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I know that the universal moral law is not a human invention. Granted, that we learn (in part) the moral law from our parents, teachers, and that it helps develop our conscience. But that does not mean that the moral law simply is "a human invention". Rather, we discover this code and that this universal moral law transcends time and culture. I know that this moral law covers three areas. But, before the three areas can be covered, I believe that it is best to first establish that the universal moral law is not a "human invention" and that it transcends time and culture. Here is the reason why that is the case:1. There is an independent instinct that judges between the individual's two  instincts that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of  them.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Very interesting post.Having read Eckhart Tolle, I think you are confusing "conscience" with "moral law".If you replace the words "moral law" with the word "conscience" in most of your sentences you will see what I mean.The last part of your post is the most interesting one. That "independent instinct" that you refer to is your conscience, and its ability to monitor your mind and your ego (itself being neither of them). Consider this sentence: "I can't live with my self"The "I" is your conscience, (the watcher), and the "my self" is your brain and ego.So, to sum it up, I think that conscience is universal, you will find it everywhere you go (or at least among people that have transcended their self and ego). "Morals" (a.k.a. values) however, are not something you come to earth with. They are learned/imposed/absorbed from the environment you live in.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

our morals are ever evolving - it was less than 100 years since US let women vote.is it moral for a country to provide basic health care for poor people? or immoral to tax non-poor people to pay for that?ask 100 devout people 100 moral questions and you will get different answers and reasonings.morals aren't universal to all people of one faith much less everyone in the universe
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"ask 100 devout people 100 moral questions and you will get different answers and reasonings"1. I already answered that in your other post. Morality can not be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions."is it moral for a country to provide basic health care for poor people? or immoral to tax non-poor people to pay for that?"2. Here is a formula: Moral standard + Factual beliefs = Moral judgment. That is to say. "To derive a moral judgment from a moral standard, we must have some beliefs about the facts of the case. Without such information, no moral judgment can be made”. If the questions are answered, than morality's prescriptions can enter into the discussions. But, there still remains the choice to either to apply them or not."morals aren't universal to all people of one faith much less everyone in the universe"3. Can you give examples?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Morality cannot be derived from reason. It is derived from EMPATHY. In philosophy class you will learn that without empathy, morality is irrelevant, and without empathy there is no sense of what is just. Child abuse and torture are a great example of universal moral truths--because you cannot dispute abuse to be wrong just because it is merely relative and everyone has their own cultural beliefs. You consider it wrong because it is universally unjust.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: NO

"Morality cannot be derived from reason. It is derived from EMPATHY"Morality being derived from empathy is a good explanation of how morality is SUBJECTIVE - not OBJECTIVE. If something is moral or immoral based on my own perception (based on my past experiences) of how someone else will experience my actions, then it is definitively not gauged by an objective external watcher.(As a side note, empathy derives from reason – the reasoning that other people will experience things in a similar fashion to how they experience them. And empathy is only one influence on whether a person decides the morality of any action)"Child abuse and torture are a great example of universal moral truths"the denotation and connotation of the word abuse includes improperness and it would seem a tautology to believe abuse is immoral - the problem becomes clear when you try to define what activities constitute "abuse" - is circumcision child abuse, how about female circumcision? Spanking? Native American and Africa rites of passage that may be very dangerous, physically harmful and even deadly? The Etoro and Baruya tribes have boys as young as 8 perform fallatio on the other males so they can swallow their semen and obtain their life force – most other cultures would consider this immoral. Is it ok to torture a terrorist? How badly should people feel if a child molester gets molested in prison? The death penalty for a serial killer? The answers to these (and all) moral questions are viewed subjectively by each individual. The truth is that the number of universally agreed upon morals is actually very close to if not totally 0 and no matter how widely accepted a moral belief is, that does not make it objective and given by some external force.The very existence of sites like these were the morals behind wars, gay marriage, the death penalty, etc. are still being debated, the changing of morals over time like the abolition of slavery and voting rights for women are evidence that morals are anything but unchangeable and objective.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

it seems we come back to the same origin of if there is a universal moral law, that is evolution. there is a universal law but only capable for humans to follow, example that animals cannibalize and kill each other, animals do acts of pure selfishness, and only the strongest survive in nature. that shows nature does not follow a universal moral law, but for humans its quite different, humans could of not evolved form the unkind unforgiving nature that has no moral conscience, even Hitler who did horrible things had to convince him self it was right to kill Jews, that is a conscience in essence. nature does not have this "thoughtful mind" the creation can not be greater the the creator, there for nature could not make humans with a moral conscience is does not have. answer is that a stronger force did, that is God. we are personal beings. nature is not, we have a personal creator, nature does to, but was not given a personal conscience, nature is just a mass of bio life, we are a mass of bio life with a personal conscience. God gave us a distinct moral conscience, people have turned away from this moral conscience to do bad things because of freedom of choice, any way off topic. the solution is though that since we have a personal conscience with distinct morals that people natural posses, that can at any time be altered to do bad or good, which still requires a moral set of laws (for instance most terrorist do their horrible acts because it is for the greater good of their objective, that in the long end their acts end up benefiting a stronger safer future for their processes. this is their moral ethical view), we there for as humankind have a moral ethical law.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

There is, but there's no deity involved. When you see a woman get hit by a man do you think to yourself: "This does not sit well with my god\parents\culture"? Well, maybe you do. But what if he hits her in the stomach? Maybe it takes her being pregnant for you? In any case there is a point where you just don't think any more, you react viscerally, what your religion, parents or culture taught you doesn’t even enter your mind and you just want to kick the guy’s ass. And that, my friends, is a universal moral law and it’s something we’ve evolved. The only ones who don't abide by it are by definition sociopaths and psychopaths.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

yet people will gather in a stadium to watch women who were raped get stoned to death or there heads chopped off. almost no morals are universal.many 'enlightened' societies have come to something approaching the conclusion that the will of one person should be treated equally with the will of another because other approaches tend to leave a majority of people feeling negatively effected which in the long term does not work.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

"yet people will gather in a stadium to watch women who were raped get stoned to death or there heads chopped off. almost no morals are universal"1. Do you have any concrete examples? In other words, something that actually happened? Evidence."many 'enlightened' societies have come to something approaching the conclusion that the will of one person should be treated equally with the will of another because other approaches tend to leave a majority of people feeling negatively effected which in the long term does not work"1. Give an example of a society that would match your statement.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: NO

1. Do you have any concrete examples? In other words, something that actually happened? Evidence.Honor killings, forced marriage to rape perpetrators, etc. happen somewhat often - do you not get out much?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081214/Somali-girl-pleaded-mercy-Islamists-stoned-death-raped.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StoningofDu'aKhalilAswadhttp://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/08/ 18/the-afghan-women-jailed-for-being-victims-of-rape.html Spousal rape is still legal in many countries."If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." - Deuteronomy 22:28-291. Give an example of a society that would match your statement.Basically any country that is a democracy where each vote is counted equally.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Now we are getting somewhere. The problem with relativism, especially with ethical subjectivism which holds that "What true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me" is that a person can go beyond just being slackers, etc. If it is lived consistantly, than it will produce people like: Charles Manson. Ethical subjectivism produces monsters. People that are unchecked, unaccountable to anything, but personal fiat. You are actually echoing Beckwith and Kouki words, "The quintessetial relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience". If a person truly believe in that nonesense, than that person that holds ethical subjectivism must allow treapassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists do not believe theirs acts are wrong. The fact is, NOBODY LIVES THAT WAY. Or do they?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Flame:"If a person truly believe in that nonesense, than that person that holds ethical subjectivism must allow treapassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists do not believe theirs acts are wrong. The fact is, NOBODY LIVES THAT WAY. Or do they?"I think you are misunderstanding ethical subjectivism here. You are right that almost no one lives that way, but an ethical subjectivist would not be logically required to live that way. While ethical subjectivism requires that we regard others' beliefs and actions as morally neutral, this does not inhibit us from trying to stop them when they do things we don't like.The burglar who is trying to invade my home is not morally wrong from an objective standpoint, but it would still be natural and sensible for me to try to stop him. This is not because I think he is objectively wrong, but rather because I have a personal interest in self-preservation and the preservation of my material possessions and the safety of my family. My belief in ethical relativism does not mean that my instincts, feelings, or senses of responsibility and ownership can not factor into my behavior and decisions. In fact, it does not even require that I refrain from punishing others for their behavior.In other words, ethical subjectivism does not require me to behave as though I don't care what other people do, or prevent me from trying to interfere when they do something that infringes on my life. My actions and beliefs are just as morally neutral as those of others.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

Don't get me started on relativism... But you can't ignore the fact that there is some sort of a moral zeitgeist, also mentioned by Richard Dawkins, in God Delusion I believe. I understand it as a basically bottom up approach to morals. Something not designed, prescribed, agreed upon but more like a product of different social and cultural pressures. The argument is pretty much analogous with the much more prominent creationist v. evolutionist debate so there’s no need to get in to too much detail. And those are a different kind of morals then what we came up with evolution, which could be called baseline. In which group does the self sacrifice fall in I couldn’t tell you for certain, but I strongly believe there’s a thought process behind it. This would put it in the moral zeitgeist category.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

At flame:Whether or not relativism produces sociopaths or monsters is irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing whether absolute, universal morals exist. The desirability of absolute morals or undesirability of relativism is irrelevant.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

1. Is that feeling (sense of right and wrong) present in almost all individuals--an indication of a God given moral law?Not the way I see it. To me it is an indication that common lessons learned across enough generations end up becoming deeply imbedded in our nature.2. Or does it simply reflect what we have been taught by our parents?I think it roots itself a little deeper and broader than just our parents3. What is its source? Where does it come from?see my first two responses4. What is its purpose?Well if it is a supposed universal moral law then I shall suppose one for the sake of conversation/debate"It is immoral to intentionally cause an injury."The purpose of articulating such a "law" I will leave to your imaginationIf there is universal agreement, we could make this a "universal ordinance" based on that agreement. Laws on the other hand are discovered not created.hoping to provoke atypican
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Hello atypician,I appreciate your participation and hope that our debate will provoke us to dig deeper than what we would normally want to. I have read some of your debates and indeed I believe it will do just that. I have to say I am looking forward to our debate. I will do my best to be as clear as possible and accurate to the position from which I am arguing. I am learning along the way and I found that defining terms is important to an early stage of a debate. I believe that you have read the definitions that I accept for the absolute morality position and the different forms of relativism, etc. Do you accept the definitions? Or would you prefer that I summarize them and post it again. And/or if you do not agree would you be so kind as to define your position and define morality?
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: No

Then to start I think success would be to find an articulation of our (supposed) disagreement that we both agree accurately describes how we disagree.Do you accept the definitions? Or would you prefer that I summarize them and post it again.if you want to be nice you could do that, I might respond quicker than if I had to search this whole thread (which I will do) but it might take me a bit longer to distill and digest then if you re-summarized.Of morality.... I think of it as a condition that develops within our personality as we reflect on past actions and their motives. Sometimes we are proud of our behavior and sometimes not. Someone with active morality is someone who is self critical.Ok now I will re -read your posts.............perhaps we can challenge one another? :)
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

I. Moral Argument Positions:a. Relativism:Holds that societies and/or individuals decide what is right andwrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or personto person.In this world view, there are no objective, universal moral truths,--just conventions for behavior that are created by people for people and that are subject to change.a1. Cultural Relativism:Is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they have all different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality.a2. Coventionalism:The view that each society decides what is right and wrong. In contrast with cultural relativism, which says that there is no right or wrong answer, conventionalism claims there is right and wrong, but it varies from society to soceity.a3. Ethical Relativism:Individuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. Morality becomes fluid and privatized, changing to fit circumstances and conforming to convenience. This view holds that morality is nothing more than personal preferences and opinion.
Debate: CONSCIENCE: IS THERE A UNIVERSAL MORAL LAW?
Side: yes

II. A. Objective Morality:It holds that morals are prescriptions for behavior and motive that have the force of a command. They contain a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative, and outweighs considerations of culture, time, and place.Thus, this world view holds that morals are not opinions. They are not personal, private decisions, and they are not descriptions of behavior.a. Science, Reason, Intuition.I would submit that in order to understand what our moral obligations are, we do not go about it scientifically. As you know, science investigates the physical world, collect facts, and draws conclusions from those facts. Therefore, it can not tell us what "ought" to happen, only what will probably happen under certain circumstances. Basically, it is descriptive. Secondly, if morality can't be based on descriptions of the world, neither can it be derived from reason. Reason helps us recognize contradictions, but not the morality of the propositions.