You know throughout the years I have grown to like our old friend Zakath. At times me and Zakath have agreed very strongly on certain subjects, I think several of Zakath's posts have been very well written and raised some excellent questions. However....
as of late, Zakath seems to have lost his edge and struggles sometimes to comprehend the argument on the table. This is evidenced by his opening statements in this very debate.
I will comment on some of Zakath's opening statements and then make a few comments of my own and finally close with a simple question for Zakath to respond to.
Zakath defines Absolute morality as....
"Independent and unrelated to anything else"???
Absolute morality - a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct that is independent of and unrelated to anything else.
I think that is a pretty careless definition of Absolute Morality. When defining a common phrase you can't always look up the definitions for the individual words within the phrase and stick the definitions together to make a reasonable definition for the phrase itself. I think most people would agree that Absolute Morality means that there are certain morals (behaviors and actions), that are wrong even if society, government or individuals deem those behaviors or actions to be "not wrong". In other words...
absolute morality means that there is a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than -
man's standard of right and wrong. Now keep in mind this debate is not to determine what specific morals are absolute. This debate is to determine IF
there is such a thing as absolute morality. If there exists just ONE
item, (behavior or action) that is absolutely wrong (or right) then absolute morality exists and Zakath has lost the debate.
In Zakath's first post he goes on to site what he calls "potential problems for the religionists, particularly Christians."
I knew going into this debate that Zakath would have a hard time making his point and conducting this debate without attempting to discuss the Bible and Christianity. Unfortunately for Zakath the question of "Does absolute morality exist?" is not necessarily a Christian issue. What this issue/debate really boils down to is....... if we can determine that absolute morality exists, (which reasonable people can do) THEN
we can determine that a god(s) exists. After that determination has been made then we can go on to discuss what sort of attributes that god must have based on many factors, but the latter is not at issue in this debate.
In the following debate I will demonstrate several things such as:
- If one argues against absolute morality they have no standing to argue for ANY
type of morality, they might think they have standing, but ultimately they do not and I will show that.
- Those who argue against absolute morality consistently contradict themselves by borrowing from existing moral (and even absolute moral)
standards in order to at least have SOME
standard of right vs, wrong (the consistently logical stance for the moral relativist would be to have NO standard of morals whatsoever, but that's just downright embarrassing and unworkable even for the moral relativist!).
- The consequences of TRULY
having no moral absolutes is totally unworkable, unnatural and contrary to the reality in which we all live.
- Those that argue against moral absolutes trick themselves into thinking certain things are not absolutely wrong. I will expose their "trick", and once I expose this "trick" it will be easy for you to spot the "trick" and you will then know how to combat this "trick".
- Moral relativists often accuse Christians and other religious groups of doing things that are wrong and even absolutely wrong! How does that fit in with their moral relativists stance?
- Moral relativists know full well the logical consequences of moral absolutes which is the only reason that they are silly enough to argue against them.
- And much much more!!!!
Battle Royale II - a note about this battle -
If you are judging this battle upon who has the largest vocabulary or who can quote the most philosophers and theologians then I am sure Zakath has the advantage. But if you are a truth seeker and are more interested in which argument is the most logical, true and in harmony with reality you will quickly see that Zakath will fail miserably.
To summarize our differences....
The moral absolutist:
The moral absolutist believes that there are things (behaviors and actions) that are absolutely wrong
, wrong EVEN in the face of how society, government or individuals feel about these behaviors and actions. Moral absolutists believe that there is a standard of right and wrong that supercedes mankind's standards of right vs. wrong. Moral absolutists believe that mankind's standard of right and wrong is often in error and we can ONLY determine these things are in error because there is such a thing as ABSOLUTE MORALITY.
The moral relativist:
The moral relativist believes that actions and behaviors are only right or wrong based on what is right or wrong in the eyes of the society, government or the individual. In other words....
what is wrong in ones eyes might be OK - or even right - in another's eyes.
which of the above are you?
My closing question for Zakath....
Zakath, in your heart of hearts, deep in your gut and entrenched in your brain, do you honestly believe that there is NO
action or behavior (none whatsoever!!!)
that is wrong, EVEN
if that action or behavior happens to be accepted by any given society, government or individual?
answer with additional explanation would be great.
And now look below for the fun part........