Convince me that eating meat is morally okay - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Convince me that eating meat is morally okay

Debate Information

I am a vegan and I have recently talked to my friends (who aren't vegan) quite a lot on this topic and honestly, they haven't been able to bring any good arguments to justify the eating of meat. My main 3 arguments are that
1) The living conditions of animals on factory farms are just terrible and since we don't need to eat meat to survive then it's immoral to do so.
2) Producing meat is vastly inefficient and is thus one of the biggest reasons for global hunger today.
3) Producing meat has a huge toll on the environment.
If we add all of this up then I just don't see how it could be worth the meagre amount of enjoyment we get from meat.

If you believe that eating meat is okay then I would love to hear your arguments and debate on this topic.
ThorPlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
Debate Details +



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • @Turtaakel

    Your 3 arguments only address "the industrial production" of meat, not eating meat per se...

    The environmental arguments are good arguments against the current industrial production and I agree with them, but they say nothing about the morality of actually "eating" meat... 

    What would make it immoral for a family producing its own meat with a dozen chickens, a dozen cows and or pigs? We're not talking factories with horrible conditions here, but small family farms producing meat for its own consumption...

    Further, how would it be immoral to eat roadkill, from possums to deers? In what way can your arguments be applied to these cases?
    Happy_KillbotJaceferrisaf1Aaron
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Turtaakel said:
    1) The living conditions of animals on factory farms are just terrible and since we don't need to eat meat to survive then it's immoral to do so.
    That’s an argument in favour of better factory farm conditions, not an argument against meat. I agree with you that the conditions are bad and they need to be better, but that’s not a good reason for meat to be considered morally bad. When I buy meat, I usually buy high quality meat from farms I have visited - does that
    make my consumption of meat ‘morally okay’? And if not, why not?
    Turtaakel said:
    2) Producing meat is vastly inefficient and is thus one of the biggest reasons for global hunger today.
    Producing chocolate is also very inefficient. Does that make eating chocolate immoral? And if not, why meat and not chocolate?
    Turtaakel said:
    I am a vegan and I have recently talked to my friends (who aren't vegan) quite a lot on this topic and honestly, they haven't been able to bring any good arguments to justify the eating of meat. My main 3 arguments are that
    1) The living conditions of animals on factory farms are just terrible and since we don't need to eat meat to survive then it's immoral to do so.
    2) Producing meat is vastly inefficient and is thus one of the biggest reasons for global hunger today.
    3) Producing meat has a huge toll on the environment.
    If we add all of this up then I just don't see how it could be worth the meagre amount of enjoyment we get from meat.

    If you believe that eating meat is okay then I would love to hear your arguments and debate on this topic.
    Yes, but it doesn’t have to. There are more environmentally efficient ways to produce meat.  Besides, lots of other things take a toll on the environment... are they all immoral too? And if so, why not?
    Also @Turtaakel, welcome to DebateIsland. I hope you become an active member of the community, as you seem like a good debater.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Turtaakel ;

    1) not all meat comes from factory farms, and as technology becomes available we will likely see a shift towards cultured meats.
    2) While producing meat is less efficient than producing most plant crops, it isn't quite as simple as just growing edible plants where animals currently graze, because not all arable land can be used to grow these crops, but some of it can be used for crops which animals can eat.
    3) The majority of the damage comes from waste water and biological contamination. Keep in mind that in the wild, most of these things animals would do anyways, and we would be left arguing that parts of the environment are bad for the environment. (which makes no sense)

    With the exception of the first one, I don't see how the others are necessarily making a moral argument here, but I would suggest that eating meat isn't necessarily immoral anyways. Morality is something that exists between human social interactions. Since animals are outside of this interaction, it makes no sense that our morality should be applied to them.
    xlJ_dolphin_473Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • If you desire a diet of vegetables, enjoy. Leave meat eaters alone...they have every right to enjoy meat.




  • TurtaakelTurtaakel 12 Pts
    edited October 17
    @Plaffelvohfen you bring the argument that a family can produce meat for its own use so that the animals have decent living conditions and while I do agree that there is nothing wrong with such a situation, then for most people this is irrelevant anyway since they do not have the chance to do so and have to choose either between eating factory-farmed meat or no meat at all.

    I also agree with you that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with eating meat, however, if we desire to continue to do so, then the only solution is to continue factory-farming as humanely produced meat simply can not match the consumption.

    (I guess I could have phrased my question better since I am not against eating meat per se, but rather against producing meat the way we do and believe that factory-farming currently is the only way to match the demand for meat.)
    Plaffelvohfen
  • That’s an argument in favour of better factory farm conditions, not an argument against meat. I agree with you that the conditions are bad and they need to be better, but that’s not a good reason for meat to be considered morally bad. When I buy meat, I usually buy high quality meat from farms I have visited - does that
    make my consumption of meat ‘morally okay’? And if not, why not?
    I certainly agree that high-quality meat is better than the average meat, yet if everyone would decide to do so then meat prices would rise immensely and most people would end up eating mostly plant-based food anyway, so the only way how we can currently continue eating meat is by continuing factory farming.
    Producing chocolate is also very inefficient. Does that make eating chocolate immoral? And if not, why meat and not chocolate?
    Even though I agree that producing chocolate can be considered inefficient, then I still think that way more food is wasted by producing meat (about 34 tons every year in the U.S alone) so if we want to combat global hunger then one of the first steps we should take is stop or at least reduce the production of meat worldwide.
  • maxxmaxx 301 Pts
    and there was daniel who ate no meat
    @RickeyD
  • @Turtaakel

    I will bet that you are pro choice. I have yet to meet a vegan or animal right's person who was truly prolife. If you are pro choice, then you are not worth a response. To care more about animal cruelty then the inhumanity of killing even viable babies during abortions, is beyond rational thought.

    If you are pro choice, you are a shining example of how totally lost mankind becomes without God. Your priorities would truly be dysfunctional.
    TurtaakelHappy_Killbot
  • @maxx ; That was Daniel's preference as you are free to choose meat or vegetables as well.

    It is written, Romans 14... (ESV)

    As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

    5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

    10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,

    “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
        and every tongue shall confess[b] to God.”

    12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

    Do Not Cause Another to Stumble

    13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

    20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.[c] 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.[d]





  • About number 1: "The living conditions of animals on factory farms are just terrible and since we don't need to eat meat to survive then it's immoral to do so."
    You would do more to end the terrible factory farm conditions by buying meat that is raised in better conditions than to not buy meat at all. A meat company that keeps animals in poor conditions is more likely to decide to switch to a different method if they see that free range meat has more market demand. This way they maintain their market position as a well known meat company and keep making profits. If everyone just stopped buying meat in all forms, the companies would cling to the business model more desperately, trying to avoid going bankrupt and losing everything. They would also probably try to cut costs even more by giving animals even worse conditions.
    Turtaakel
  • You can, by all means, not eat meat, however your diet will be sub-optimal (everyone's is, but yours will be even moreso). I'm not interested in being in worse health than I could be. I want my brain, organs and muscles in tip-top condition. The reason that meat tastes so good is because it contains nutrients that your body needs. Moreover, I eat organic free range animal products, which do not cause great suffering to the animals involved and incentivizes the good treatment of animals.

    Vegans have to take a great deal of supplement pills in order to get all the nutrients that their body needs in decent quantities. They need to be experts in nutrition (and by the way, most people are starkly ignorant on this subject) in order to even maintain decent health, let alone to move towards optimal health. Vegans have no real source of B12 except for supplementation. They have no source of heme-iron (which is better than plant iron). They have no direct source of retinol and must create it from other A-vitamins. They have no decent source of creatine excepting supplementation. They have not got enough decent sources of protein, if you are of a muscular build (fake meats and protein powders are highly processed and have other health issues). Further, the legumes that most vegans rely on for protein are full of anti-nutrients, and don't even get me started on the endocrine disruption of soy. Vegans have no good sources of choline, and zinc is rare in vegan foods (moreover, vegan diets appear to inhibit zinc absorption). Deficiencies in any of these nutrients will lead to negative health effects. If you are going to be a vegan or vegetarian then please research extensively on nutrition so that you do not put your health at risk.

    To conclude, you certainly can make do nutritionally on a vegan or vegetarian diet (with extensive supplementation), however your health will not be as good as it could be.
    Turtaakel
  • I think a lot of good points have already been made, especially about whether eating meat that doesn't come from factory farms, etc. is morally acceptable, so I won't rehash those. I would be interested in knowing what your basis for morality is. I've been thinking about the question of eating meat lately (I have a vegan neighbor), and I suspect there might be different moral bases at play.
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    edited October 25
    @ferrisaf1

     I would be interested in knowing what your basis for morality is

    Mine is purely subjective , out of curiosity what is your basis?


  • @Dee

    I am a Christian, so I am coming from the basis of an objective morality found outside of my subjective experience, where God is the standard. 

    I imagine there are still a lot of common-ground premises that we'll share: animal suffering isn't good, being a good steward of our natural resources is good, etc.. 

    The Bible clearly states in multiple places (first in Genesis 9:3) that eating meat is permissible. So from a Christian perspective, no further explanation is needed (factory farming and such could be a whole other conversation). However, I do find it interesting that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve ate only plants, and that in Heaven "the lion shall lie down with the lamb." Granted, there was no death before sin and there will be no death in Heaven, so I guess it does make sense. But that conversation can be expounded upon another time.

    Anyways, I'll pose a question to you that I am genuinely interested in hearing an answer to. For the record, it might sound nihilistic and critical, but I don't mean it to be - it's just a strong way of expressing what I see as a logical outcome of subjective morals. I assure you, I am writing this with a very friendly tone :) .  So here it is: if morals are subjective, that is, that right and wrong are only right and wrong because we perceive them as such, then why does it really matter? If all of humanity simply decided that billions upon billions of innocent animals brutally suffering for absolutely no reason was totally fine morally, then would it be? If morals don't exist outside of us, then I suppose it would be perfectly fine, since it's not really wrong or right. Again, that is a genuine question. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll end here and let you respond.


    Happy_Killbot
  • @ferrisaf1 ;
    So here it is: if morals are subjective, that is, that right and wrong are only right and wrong because we perceive them as such, then why does it really matter?
    Yes.
     If all of humanity simply decided that billions upon billions of innocent animals brutally suffering for absolutely no reason was totally fine morally, then would it be?
    No, that's not how subjective morals work.
    If morals don't exist outside of us, then I suppose it would be perfectly fine, since it's not really wrong or right. Again, that is a genuine question. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll end here and let you respond.
    If you do, then people who hold a subjective view that what you are doing is wrong will come and arrest you. In asserting our power, subjective views are enforced. Any set of subjective morals which allows itself to exist will continue to exist if it is able. Morals that don't will cease to exist as they are replaced by or countered by others.

    Now here's some hard questions for you since you think that "god" somehow makes morals objective: What if god changes his mind and says that now eating meat is not permissible? Does Yahweh as depicted in the bible ever change his morals? Does he even follow the moral guidelines he lays out for everyone? Is it even possible for him to do this?
    Dee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @ferrisaf1

    I am a Christian, so I am coming from the basis of an objective morality found outside of my subjective experience, where God is the standard. 

    But Muslims believe god is the standard also so would you accept their moral code if not why not?

    I imagine there are still a lot of common-ground premises that we'll share: animal suffering isn't good, being a good steward of our natural resources is good, etc.. 

    The majority of people ignore animal suffering in favor of the pleasure of meat eating 

    The Bible clearly states in multiple places (first in Genesis 9:3) that eating meat is permissible. So from a Christian perspective, no further explanation is needed (factory farming and such could be a whole other conversation). 

    Yes , the bible permits animal suffering in favor of the pleasure of meat eating

    However, I do find it interesting that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve ate only plants, and that in Heaven "the lion shall lie down with the lamb." Granted, there was no death before sin and there will be no death in Heaven, so I guess it does make sense. But that conversation can be expounded upon another time.

    As a Christian you accept such yes 

    Anyways, I'll pose a question to you that I am genuinely interested in hearing an answer to. For the record, it might sound nihilistic and critical, but I don't mean it to be - it's just a strong way of expressing what I see as a logical outcome of subjective morals. I assure you, I am writing this with a very friendly tone  .  So here it is: if morals are subjective, that is, that right and wrong are only right and wrong because we perceive them as such, then why does it really matter? 

    Why would it not matter? We humans are social creatures we have figured out that we work better ( mostly) through cooperation and a basic level of regard and concern for others 

    If all of humanity simply decided that billions upon billions of innocent animals brutally suffering for absolutely no reason was totally fine morally, then would it be?


    But why would they collectively decide this? Yet if your god decided this and let it be known you would gladly do it right?

     If morals don't exist outside of us, then I suppose it would be perfectly fine, since it's not really wrong or right.


    Morality is ever evolving and changing our culture shapes our moral beliefs, which is why in other cultures we are deemed immoral and the reverse is also true, we deem them likewise 

     Again, that is a genuine question. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll end here and let you 

    Thank you for your response 
  • AaronAaron 74 Pts
    @RickeyD

    lmao I don't agree with your biblical stuff, but I agree what you're saying.
    RickeyD
  • AaronAaron 74 Pts
    It actually is morally correct, or in some cases it has to be. Some people have conditions that do not allow them to become a vegan and they do not believe that it is wrong as well as most non vegan people. You give good points about the environmental issues but none about the actual meat eating. Eating meat can be healthy when portioned correctly and, with correct circumstances can't be morally wrong at all. Technology is also quickly advancing and there may soon be an option to eat meat without killing the animal itself. I understand though that you do not enjoy that the animals are killed and I will respect your opinion, but whether it's morally wrong depends on your morals not ours and if we choose to eat meat, in our eyes we feel it's morally correct. It's not an issue to eat meat therefore let it be.
  • @Happy_Killbot
    If you do, then people who hold a subjective view that what you are doing is wrong will come and arrest you. In asserting our power, subjective views are enforced. Any set of subjective morals which allows itself to exist will continue to exist if it is able. Morals that don't will cease to exist as they are replaced by or countered by others.

    If Hitler had somehow succeeded in convincing the entire world that his view of the Jews was correct, would that make it correct? If suddenly every single person in existence truly believed that raping and killing toddlers was fine, would that make it okay? My point is that there has to be a moral standard outside of man, otherwise no morals truly exist - they are at best socially convenient fabrications that exist only in our own experience.

    Now here's some hard questions for you since you think that "god" somehow makes morals objective: What if god changes his mind and says that now eating meat is not permissible? Does Yahweh as depicted in the bible ever change his morals? Does he even follow the moral guidelines he lays out for everyone? Is it even possible for him to do this?

    Simply put, God does not change his mind. "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." (Numbers 23:19). This is the immutability (that is, the unchanging nature) of God. So your question assumes a different God than the one the Bible teaches. Yahweh as depicted in the Bible does not change his morals. There are indeed instances where he gives specific commands for a specific time, such as commanding the Jews to abstain from eating pork, but that is not because eating pork is wrong in and of itself (Matthew 15:11), but rather because he had a specific plan for those people.

    Does he even follow the moral guidelines he lays out for everyone? I applaud you here for a very good and profound question! The answer is a resounding yes. It is precisely because we could not keep all of God's commands perfectly that God himself became man - Jesus Christ - and fulfilled the law perfectly (Matthew 5:17-20). What's more is that he not only fulfilled the law, but accepted the punishment deserved by those who break the law - suffering, death, and estrangement. Because of this, we are able to be reconciled to God, having our penalty paid in full by Him and having his righteousness imputed to us, if we will accept it and trust in Him. 
  • @Dee
    But Muslims believe god is the standard also so would you accept their moral code if not why not?
    I do not accept the Muslims' moral code as a whole, because they have denied the true God and have inserted their own subjective morals into the Quran (I suppose it would be more fitting to say the Muhammad inserted his morals, and others adopted it). I should clarify that a belief in God is not necessary to understand the fact that morals are objective. In fact, moral objectivity has for a long time been used as an argument for God's existence! But more on that some other time. By and large, a Muslim and I - and I suspect you - would agree on the majority of moral issues. We shouldn't harm others, we shouldn't lie to or betray others, etc.. 

    Why would it not matter? We humans are social creatures we have figured out that we work better ( mostly) through cooperation and a basic level of regard and concern for others 
    It would not matter because it wouldn't really be right or wrong. It sounds like you do not believe in God (please correct me if I am wrong). If no God exists, and the Universe is all there is, then we really are just a collection of atoms that have produced this illusion of consciousness and autonomy. But in reality, we are just clumps of biochemicals that will one day become dispersed atoms once again in a universe that is growing colder and darker, until life no longer exists and all traces of it are erased from the universe's "memory." If that is the case, then nothing done here ultimately matters; the end result is the same. Sure, it might feel good for us and others in the moment if we act what we call "morally," but in the end it doesn't really matter. The concept of right and wrong will fade with humanity, and all will be forgotten in darkness. Again, it's nihilistic, I know, but I think it is logically inevitable if God doesn't exist and morals are subjective.

    But why would they collectively decide this [that brutally killing billions of animals is okay]? Yet if your god decided this and let it be known you would gladly do it right?
    See my earlier post on the immutability of God. He doesn't change, so he doesn't suddenly decide new things. 
    My question doesn't need an explanation of why they would collectively decide this in order to be answered, just that fact that it is the case. (so I would still very much appreciate an answer). After all, your view of morality doesn't depend on why people decide things, just the fact that they decide certain things to be moral. In fact, if you are demanding an explanation of why they would decide something like that, then you are, in a way, appealing to objective and not subjective morals! If they have to provide justification for their decision, then it is no longer subjective morals because now their decision has to be based in truth outside of themselves! It now has to be rationalized objectively and logically concluded, which is... objective morality :smile:
  • @ferrisaf1 ;
    If Hitler had somehow succeeded in convincing the entire world that his view of the Jews was correct, would that make it correct? If suddenly every single person in existence truly believed that raping and killing toddlers was fine, would that make it okay? My point is that there has to be a moral standard outside of man, otherwise no morals truly exist - they are at best socially convenient fabrications that exist only in our own experience.
    Yes. Let me throw that question back at you: If god declared Hitler's genocide to be correct, similar to his decree to kill the Amorites in the old Testament, does that make it right?

    Christian morals are subjective morals in disguise. That's my point. The concept of objective morals is ludicrous.
    Simply put, God does not change his mind. "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." (Numbers 23:19). This is the immutability (that is, the unchanging nature) of God. So your question assumes a different God than the one the Bible teaches. Yahweh as depicted in the Bible does not change his morals. There are indeed instances where he gives specific commands for a specific time, such as commanding the Jews to abstain from eating pork, but that is not because eating pork is wrong in and of itself (Matthew 15:11), but rather because he had a specific plan for those people.
    You said you are a Christian, so... here comes scriptural proof that Yahweh does in fact change his morals.

    First consider this: Genesis 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

    There are multiple problems here. The most of which is that god just committed genocide, which is plainly in defiance of his own commandment not to do so. In other words, god just broke his own rules. This means that if you are to justify morals based on god's Character, then genocide is within that character.

    In addition, god is explicitly stating that he is creating a new moral rule, namely that he won't violate geology flood the earth again, so we might say that this is a new moral rule, therefore god did in fact change his mind, going from a state of "flood-genocide is okay" to "Never flood again" I could conclude here that in fact, your speculation that god doesn't change his mind is false, but there shall be no mercy.

    Even better, consider Levitical law which states all sorts of restrictions from don't eat pork to don't wear clothing made of different materials. In the NT, these restrictions no longer apply to Christians because they are said to only apply to the Hebrew people as part of god's plan as you suggest.

    What is the definition of subjective morals again?

    Subjective morals: The system of morality varies from person to person in relation to different cultures and periods in time.

    This very fact that there are some laws which don't apply to Christians as a result of accepting Jesus's name is tautological proof that Christians hold subjective morals.
    I applaud you here for a very good and profound question! The answer is a resounding yes. It is precisely because we could not keep all of God's commands perfectly that God himself became man - Jesus Christ - and fulfilled the law perfectly (Matthew 5:17-20). What's more is that he not only fulfilled the law, but accepted the punishment deserved by those who break the law - suffering, death, and estrangement. Because of this, we are able to be reconciled to God, having our penalty paid in full by Him and having his righteousness imputed to us, if we will accept it and trust in Him. 
    As outlined above, I suggest the answer is clearly no, he does not follow his own rules. God kills millions of people in the bible in various ways, and orders the slaying of more still in blatant violation of the commandments.

    Second, there is the problem of evil, which for fun I'm going to dress up like this: Does god know what it is like to want to snort cocaine off a married stripper's &$$?
    That probably seems hyperbolic, but it is actually highly problematic on consideration.
    - If god does know this (or anything like it) then he is committing the sin of lust which is forbidden in the beatitudes (1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 John 3:2) and the 10th commandment "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife"
    - If god does not know what this is like, then he is not omniscient as is suggested by John 3:20, Hebrews 4:13, Job 28:24.

    Either way we have a problem where god is not following his own moral guidelines, and as such I would contend that your answer is in error.

    To bring this back to topic, if god comes down from the clouds and orders you to be a vegan now, then you must do it for the sake of your dogma.
    Dee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    edited October 26
    @ferrisaf1

    I do not accept the Muslims' moral code as a whole, because they have denied the true God and have inserted their own subjective morals into the Quran (I suppose it would be more fitting to say the Muhammad inserted his morals, and others adopted it). 


    I’m sure you had an account here in a different name ( Sand) as you are using the very same arguments as a previous user , is this true? 

    I know you don’t nor they yours and Christians inserted their own take on biblical morality to suit themselves , most Christians accept homosexuality and do not persecute or demand homosexuals are put to death as claimed in the Bible ....... • You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22

    • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13

    Another example of Christians inserting there own subjective morality on what the Bible clearly states regarding marriage 

    King James Bible

    What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder


    Finally what about slavery as fully approved of by the Bible and Jesus we no longer do that because Christians disagree with biblical rules for slavery


    I should clarify that a belief in God is not necessary to understand the fact that morals are objective. In fact, moral objectivity has for a long time been used as an argument for God's existence! But more on that some other time. By and large, a Muslim and I - and I suspect you - would agree on the majority of moral issues. We shouldn't harm others, we shouldn't lie to or betray others, etc.. 



    We would agree on some moral issues , the majority I doubt very much.


    Objective knowledge is actually derived from subjective knowledge. The process of arriving at a moral truth is in principle exactly the same as that: by inquiry and agreement among autonomous individuals



    It would not matter because it wouldn't really be right or wrong


    That makes no sense at all , why would I need a god or gods to know that killing , raping , robbing are wrong ? 


    It sounds like you do not believe in God (please correct me if I am wrong). If no God exists, and the Universe is all there is, then we really are just a collection of atoms that have produced this illusion of consciousness and autonomy. But in reality, we are just clumps of biochemicals that will one day become dispersed atoms once again in a universe that is growing colder and darker, until life no longer exists and all traces of it are erased from the universe's "memory." If that is the case, then nothing done here ultimately matters; the end result is the same. 


    I don’t believe that a god or gods exist until I see evidence to support the claim I maintain this position.


    Why would nothing matter? Why would enjoying family / friends and life not matter without god?


    Do you think Atheists go around in a state of gloom robbing , raping ,stealing because that’s what your suggesting as nothing matters right?


    Sure, it might feel good for us and others in the moment if we act what we call "morally," but in the end it doesn't really matter. The concept of right and wrong will fade with humanity, and all will be forgotten in darkness. Again, it's nihilistic, I know, but I think it is logically inevitable if God doesn't exist and morals are subjective.


    When you’re dead you’re dead , this does not disturb me at all the reverse in fact 


    See my earlier post on the immutability of God. He doesn't change, so he doesn't suddenly decide new things. 


    He certainly changed from old to New Testament. How do you know he doesn’t change ?


    My question doesn't need an explanation of why they would collectively decide this in order to be answered, just that fact that it is the case. (so I would still very much appreciate an answer). After all, your view of morality doesn't depend on why people decide things, just the fact that they decide certain things to be moral. 


    It certainly does require an explanation. You totally ignored what I stated .....

    We humans are social creatures we have figured out that we work better ( mostly) through cooperation and a basic level of regard and concern for others 


    That’s the why



    In fact, if you are demanding an explanation of why they would decide something like that, then you are, in a way, appealing to objective and not subjective morals! 


    I’m asking you the why you refuse to answer , I’ve given you my reason why


    If they have to provide justification for their decision, then it is no longer subjective morals because now their decision has to be based in truth outside of themselves! 


    That’s not true what truth outside themselves are they appealing to?


    If this was the case everyone in the worlds morality would be based on this truth outside themselves and you’ve totally contradicted yourself by claiming Muslim morality is subjective yet I as an Atheist follow objective morality ......I think your totally confused 


    It now has to be rationalized objectively and logically concluded, which is... objective morality 



    Nonsense , here you are stating the opposite .... I do not accept the Muslims' moral code as a whole, because they have denied the true God and have inserted their own subjective morals into the Quran 



    If your god is the source of all morality and the ultimate moral agent you have to accept he watched the Holocaust unfold and did nothing to prevent the deaths but watch , if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death 

    Do you accept it was a perfectly moral decision by your god just to watch? If so why?

  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    I’m convinced this is Sand back with a new account , it’s his favourite hobby horse debate and a repetition of the same arguments from before

    I had a feeling he would open a new account as he totally contradicted himself on previous posts and he’s doing it again 
  • @Dee
    @Happy_Killbot
    First off, this is the first I am hearing of the user Sand. I assure you, I am brand new to this site. I find it interesting that he and I share arguments... maybe I'll see if I can find him on here  :)

    You have given me more than a few things to respond to, and I do have limited time, so forgive me that I won't be able to address all of what you said. I will try to choose a few of the more important arguments to address. Also, I confess that discussing the objectivity of morality is indeed going down a rabbit trail, and will distract from the original topic. Nonetheless, I will proceed. 

    Let me clarify what I mean by objective morality. What I mean is that right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of what anybody thinks is right and wrong. If the whole world decided that raping and killing toddlers was morally good and there is absolutely nobody around to say otherwise, I still absolutely object to that because it is still wrong. Note that Happy_Killbot (I think) affirmed that in this case it would be okay. Anybody reading this needs to understand the gravity of the situation. I think that  The morality isn't based in people, it is outside of them. I believe that it is based in God, which is a big deal, but that is mostly beside the point for the moment.

    To briefly address Happy_Killbot's claim that God changes his morals: 
    God promising not to do something after having done it once doesn't make it a moral thing. I could promise to no longer ride a bike. That doesn't make riding a bike immoral; it simply means that I won't do it again. Your question of "If god declared Hitler's genocide to be correct, similar to his decree to kill the Amorites in the old Testament, does that make it right?" uses a contradictory hypothetical. It is basically saying, "If God says something is what it isn't, then what is it?" You see, God is consistent and doesn't do such things. He didn't declare it to be good, because it was objectively evil. You are presupposing what you are trying to prove in your hypothetical.

    With regard to the Old Testament Law - there are three kinds of laws in the Old Testament: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The civil and ceremonial don't pertain to moral issues. In other words, there was never anything objectively wrong with eating pork or clipping your beard. They had a different purpose - to set God's people apart from other people. 

    With regard to your profane "Does God know..." question: Yes, God knows. But you present a false dichotomy in which you conflate temptation with sin. Jesus has been tempted in every way that we are, but without sin.

    Now for some of Dee's arguments:
    "Objective knowledge is actually derived from subjective knowledge." Are you affirming objective morals then?

    "...why would I need a god or gods to know that killing , raping , robbing are wrong ?" I don't think that your belief in God is the only way to know this is wrong. That's because it's an objective moral and is self-evident.

    "Why would nothing matter? Why would enjoying family / friends and life not matter without god? Do you think Atheists go around in a state of gloom robbing , raping ,stealing because that’s what your suggesting as nothing matters right?" I don't think Atheists go around doing those things for two reasons: 1) There are undesirable consequences of doing those things. 2) They are tuned in to sense morals are objective, and so doing such things is repulsive. But on the Atheist view, if I decided that I wanted to spend my life killing and raping people, it wouldn't ultimately be "wrong" except that other people say it is. Ten billion years from now, my actions will not really matter, and so who cares? I may as well do what I want. I am, after all, just a clump of atoms. And I am predetermined to do what I'm going to do, so nobody can really hold me responsible, right?

    Your question concerning God "just watching" the Holocaust is a really good question. If you can point out to me what action of God's was wrong, then I'll accept it. But I see no evidence of him doing anything wrong there. After all, people are the ones who did the gassing, right? If God were to remove from mankind all responsibility, autonomy, and the consequences of actions, then you would suppose him to be a dictator. The reality is that God gives us responsibility and will, because that is the only way we can truly love him. Anything less than that would be depriving mankind of the ability to love. 

    Also, I will note that in order to really accuse God of evil you have suppose that God exists and affirm that objective morals exist. If you don't have either of those two things, then we can't really discuss that accusation. You can't accuse someone who doesn't exist of something that doesn't exist :) 





  • @Dee ;
    Using the same arguments just means he isn't original, remember Christians go to largely the same sources for their information on these debates, which would lead to a general agreement on most theological matters. I have seen all of these exact same arguments from before, without the need to suggest this user is Sand.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @ferrisaf1 ;
    Let me clarify what I mean by objective morality. What I mean is that right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of what anybody thinks is right and wrong. If the whole world decided that raping and killing toddlers was morally good and there is absolutely nobody around to say otherwise, I still absolutely object to that because it is still wrong. Note that Happy_Killbot (I think) affirmed that in this case it would be okay. Anybody reading this needs to understand the gravity of the situation. I think that  The morality isn't based in people, it is outside of them. I believe that it is based in God, which is a big deal, but that is mostly beside the point for the moment.
    Demonstrate then that it is wrong. Prove it. If your morality is based in god, prove god exists.
    God promising not to do something after having done it once doesn't make it a moral thing. I could promise to no longer ride a bike. That doesn't make riding a bike immoral; it simply means that I won't do it again. Your question of "If god declared Hitler's genocide to be correct, similar to his decree to kill the Amorites in the old Testament, does that make it right?" uses a contradictory hypothetical. It is basically saying, "If God says something is what it isn't, then what is it?" You see, God is consistent and doesn't do such things. He didn't declare it to be good, because it was objectively evil. You are presupposing what you are trying to prove in your hypothetical.
    You missed the point.

    The point is that it is contradictory, therefore your premise is false. God orders a genocide in the bible and carries one out to boot. You can not both claim that Yahweh can't order/condone genocide and that it is objectively evil to do so based on god.

    In other words, god did change his mind from a state of genocide is okay, to genocide isn't okay. If we take your rebuttal seriously, then it would imply that god still thinks genocide is okay, and we have a case to say Hitler is right, which is in blatant contradiction of your statement that he is objectively wrong.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.
    With regard to the Old Testament Law - there are three kinds of laws in the Old Testament: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The civil and ceremonial don't pertain to moral issues. In other words, there was never anything objectively wrong with eating pork or clipping your beard. They had a different purpose - to set God's people apart from other people. 
    You missed the point again. The fact that there are other laws that don't apply to Christians means that god's morals are tautologically subjective. It is irrelevant if these laws are civil, ceremonial, or moral, because god is the source for all of them. Besides, even if we just look at moral laws, we will note that those changed as well.

    For example, belief in and acceptance of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christian morals. Before Jesus this was not. Thus, we go from a state of not believing in Jesus is moral -> believing in Jesus is necessarily moral.
    With regard to your profane "Does God know..." question: Yes, God knows. But you present a false dichotomy in which you conflate temptation with sin. Jesus has been tempted in every way that we are, but without sin.
    If Jesus knows what this is like, then Jesus committed a thought crime sin. Plain and simple as that. Knowing lust is the same as being lustful. 
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    edited October 26
    @ferrisaf1


    First off, this is the first I am hearing of the user Sand. I assure you, I am brand new to this site. I find it interesting that he and I share arguments... maybe I'll see if I can find him on here   

    Ok 

    You have given me more than a few things to respond to, and I do have limited time, so forgive me that I won't be able to address all of what you said. I will try to choose a few of the more important arguments to address. Also, I confess that discussing the objectivity of morality is indeed going down a rabbit trail, and will distract from the original topic. Nonetheless, I will proceed. 

    Let me clarify what I mean by objective morality. What I mean is that right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of what anybody thinks is right and wrong. 

    Right so if god says killing is right it’s right ? Also if it’s right or wrong regardless what people think what is the property it has that makes it right or wrong independent of what we think ? How do we detect it?

    If the whole world decided that raping and killing toddlers was morally good and there is absolutely nobody around to say otherwise, I still absolutely object to that because it is still wrong

    So do I, again why would the whole world decide this 


    Note that Happy_Killbot (I think) affirmed that in this case it would be okay. Anybody reading this needs to understand the gravity of the situation. I think that  The morality isn't based in people, it is outside of them.

    That’s something you cannot prove 

     I believe that it is based in God, which is a big deal, but that is mostly beside the point for the moment.

    Yes and depends on which gods morality one chooses 

    To briefly address Happy_Killbot's claim that God changes his morals: 
    God promising not to do something after having done it once doesn't make it a moral thing. I could promise to no longer ride a bike. That doesn't make riding a bike immoral; it simply means that I won't do it again. Your question of "If god declared Hitler's genocide to be correct, similar to his decree to kill the Amorites in the old Testament, does that make it right?" uses a contradictory hypothetical. It is basically saying, "If God says something is what it isn't, then what is it?" You see, God is consistent and doesn't do such things. 
    He didn't declare it to be good, because it was objectively evil. You are presupposing what you are trying to prove in your hypothetical.

    That makes no sense at all god commands killing in his name how is that a “moral good”?

    With regard to the Old Testament Law - there are three kinds of laws in the Old Testament: moral, civil, and ceremonial. The civil and ceremonial don't pertain to moral issues. In other words, there was never anything objectively wrong with eating pork or clipping your beard. They had a different purpose - to set God's people apart from other people. 

    I said gods morality changes from the old to the New Testament do you deny this?

    With regard to your profane "Does God know..." question: Yes, God knows. But you present a false dichotomy in which you conflate temptation with sin. Jesus has been tempted in every way that we are, but without sin.

    That makes no sense 

    Now for some of Dee's arguments:
    "Objective knowledge is actually derived from subjective knowledge." 

    Are you affirming objective morals then?

    No , I’m saying there are objective facts 

     That's because it's an objective moral and is self-evident.

    No it’s not an objective moral demonstrate that to be the case please?

     I don't think Atheists go around doing those things for two reasons: 1) There are undesirable consequences of doing those things. 2) They are tuned in to sense morals are objective, and so doing such things is repulsive. 

    No they know morality is subjective you’re making claims you cannot verify 

    But on the Atheist view, if I decided that I wanted to spend my life killing and raping people, it wouldn't ultimately be "wrong" except that other people say it is. 

    How is that the “Atheist view “? I can condemn such actions I’m an Atheist 

     I may as well do what I want. I am, after all, just a clump of atoms. And I am predetermined to do what I'm going to do, so nobody can really hold me responsible, right?

    Try it and see what becomes of you and again you’re assuming without god one cannot be moral when the opposite is true 

    You also never addressed.... If this was the case everyone in the worlds morality would be based on this truth outside themselves and you’ve totally contradicted yourself by claiming Muslim morality is subjective yet I as an Atheist follow objective morality ......I think your totally confused please explain?


    Your question concerning God "just watching" the Holocaust is a really good question. If you can point out to me what action of God's was wrong, then I'll accept it. But I see no evidence of him doing anything wrong there. After all, people are the ones who did the gassing, right? If God were to remove from mankind all responsibility, autonomy, and the consequences of actions, then you would suppose him to be a dictator. The reality is that God gives us responsibility and will, because that is the only way we can truly love him. Anything less than that would be depriving mankind of the ability to love. 

    You totally failed to address what I actually said and what I actually asked , can you attempt to do so .....

    If your god is the source of all morality and the ultimate moral agent you have to accept he watched the Holocaust unfold and did nothing to prevent the deaths but watch , if your god is the source of all morality a Christian has to accept that it’s perfectly just and moral for god to watch men, women and children being gassed to death 

    Do you accept it was a perfectly moral decision by your god just to watch? If so why?



    Also, I will note that in order to really accuse God of evil you have suppose that God exists and affirm that objective morals exist

    Thats incorrect you believe in a god i do not have to believe in such to criticise Christians worldview based on such that’s a very strange assertion .

    If you don't have either of those two things, then we can't really discuss that accusation. You can't accuse someone who doesn't exist of something that doesn't exist  

    I can criticise your ideas based on such , I think you need to rethink what you’re saying 

    You also totally ignored how the Bible says homosexuals must be put to death , how divorce is a sin and how slavery is approved of and why Christians disagree on gods word if its meant to be based his objective moral commands 




  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Fair point , the reason I  thought such is he seems to use similar phrasing to sand and seems to be confused like before regarding subjective/ objective applied to morality .....He says he is not Sand so I will accept such for now 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch