posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:51 PM
While I respect the position my opponent is taking, it makes no difference in this debate as I will show.
I would still offer that regardless of religion, there are still things that we know to be right and wrong with or without religion. Honestly, adding
religion and other forms of defining morals will make my argument easier, so I will refrain for now and stick with the more restrictive definition.
Going back to the speed limit law, I would understand that, without a law setting speed, driving at any speed has no moral consequence, no right or
wrong speed. We also know that certain laws such as this have been agreed upon by the many for a greater good ... usually safety. This is why
school zones are usually 15-20 mph; neighborhoods are 30-35 mph. These limits are imposed onto our privilege to drive to ensure to not cause
harm to children, pets, and families.
To deny these laws is intentionally putting yourself in the position of increasing the danger to the people and animals outside your personal bubble
for your personal benefit. Disregarding others safety for a selfish and irrelevant gain of a few seconds can be a few things ... either senseless
abandon and carelessness (violating the law by speeding for no reason at all), or rushing as the result of personal irresponsibility (violating the
law and jeopardizing others safety for the sake of being late, leaving late, and/or will be late for a promised time of meeting; either a job,
appointment, date, or a self-appointed schedule/plan).
Laws are to protect the safety of others and have been agreed to by the majority of society to set forth a precedence of right and wrong actions to
take. Whether you agree with each individual law or its individual importance, you would have to agree, it is wrong to break the law. To do
something wrong is inherently immoral.
Again, the issue of speeding is a simple and common one that most people can relate to; some even do this offense with reckless disregard. I don't
need to pull up records of each state's revenue to prove it happens (though if requested I will make this information easily accessible via links),
since it is almost guaranteed that each of us either have, or have known someone who has willfully broken the law once if not many times on this issue
alone, if not many others. Again, the severity isn't the question ... immorality doesn't have to be murder by any definition put forth on either
Now, with religion or without, using my opponents definition which I was well aware of (but also decided not to source a publicly editable source)
states ... a code of conduct held to be authoritative in a matter of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual
This would easily fit to the laws our society has agreed upon as laws of right and wrong that we must adhere to (including traffic laws and laws on
drugs including alcohol - remember, alcohol is a regulated drug).
Not just the act of violating but any underlying desire to violate any of these laws which are set forth by society that clearly dictate right
or wrong behavior is obviously an act against the definition or morality given, therefore immoral.
I will also restate, I don't need to prove that humans act on their immorality, just that they think and/or feel immoral thoughts and
have wishes of immoral things inside their mind and heart naturally. How well they can personally fend off these immoral urges is not in question.
Each of us has our own strengths and weaknesses, but I will easily argue that all of us do go through such an inner struggle.
Ok, let's step it up a notch.
My opponent has brought up religious morality.
Another's immoral act does not justify you to think or act immorally.
It is common practice in the U.S.A. to execute criminals of severe crimes. A lot of people seem to enjoy and encourage this behavior, including the
victim's families. To kill someone because of their wrong doesn't justify the glee from ending the criminal's life.
Religion is a great helper in this debate; since one of the 10 Commandments is 'Thou shall not kill' ... it does not have clauses or loopholes. It
is wrong, therefore immoral, to kill for any reason, regardless of what crime is done. It would be better to put the criminal is solitary confinement
and forbid them of any amenities other than what is required for survival.
Having sex before marriage. This is immoral as far as religion is concerned. You should only have sex with your wife. Drinking to
intoxication is also deemed immoral in The Bible, though of course a glass of wine with dinner is not. Homosexual sex, is immoral, it is a sin,
but, let me also state that in the eyes of G-d, all sins are equally bad and immoral, so a murderer, a homosexual, an adulterer, and an
intoxicated person all share the same sin and immorality as the other ... there is no bashing of any particular choices from my side.
Individual conscience, well, yes, I have made mention of this indirectly ... but the individual still must adhere to societies standards and their
personal religious standards (if they have them). A person is not exempt from society's laws because their personal beliefs don't coincide with
I will end this round for I am running out of characters. Thank you again for all who are participating in this debate directly and indirectly.