It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sooooo, are we giving a speech or having a debate? Make your mind up before you continue.
I believe there are three judges who score it, but I'm not entirely sure. Vagabond has run the one or two that we've actually had and could give you the skinny on that.
In the formal debates, what has taken place is that a word limit is given, and each party has 24 hours to respond. The posts are first an introduction, three rebuttals and a conclusion. The conclusion cannot contain any new information, but must reiterate all the points made in the intro and rebuttals. If one of the parties does not respond within the 24 hour time limit without contacting the other opponent and judge (most likely Vagabond), they forfeit that response. After the conclusions are made, the judges weigh in anonymously and the verdict is handed out.
In the moral universe, there is a big difference between general rules and rigid laws. Immanuel Kant's The Critique of Practical Reason illustrates this point quite well. Kant used logic and reason to propose the existence of the categorical imperative, which impels us to "act as if the maxim of our action were to become . . . a universal law of nature." Without going into all the details, Kant concluded that, in light of the categorical imperative, it was always wrong to tell a lie--even to a murderer stalking your friend.
How many people, Christian or otherwise, would not lie in that situation? Is lying therefore an absolute moral wrong? No, because ethics are inescapably situational. Although there is general agreement across the ideological spectrum that lying is wrong, there are still situations in which it is the morally correct thing to do.
Now, here's the thing, I really DON'T want to spend my time in a formal debate, so I am willing to say agree to disagree. This will take up much time, so an agreement here would suit me more; however:
If that does not suit you, and you absolutely insist, I will debate you. You must agree however to stop with the childish insults and accusations for which I've had to retaliate. I feel like I'm debating with a crybaby. No more name calling either.
I assume the premise will be 'Humanism: The Harbinger of a New Age, or the Destruction of Our Civility'. Yeah, sounds good doesn't it? Sometimes I just surprise myself. The alternative was 'Humanism: Good or Bad'. I like the first one better.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Bigwhammy
Actually moral absolutism is what creates despots of men.
Why did Hitler massacre Jews? Because he thought he was right. He believed his own infallibility. He thought that he had the moral absolute.
What does relativism bring to the table?
Well, I would consider myself a relativist. My moral code and your moral code will indubitably clash on many issues. For example, I believe it is the height of immorality to force a woman to bear the child resultant of rape. No doubt some would contend this.
Relativism allows us to have a more peaceful world. With moral absolutism there is no room for maneuver... It reduces the actions of men to black and white, right or wrong. In reality of course, the world is a quagmire of grey.
You mentioned that lying is always wrong, and that you would tell a murderer where your friend was hiding just to avoid lying... that you would sacrifice a life rather than lie. Are you being serious- is this a view you truly hold? If so, no amount of debate will enable us to understand each other.
originally posted by Bigwhammy
Using the objective moral law we still weigh these issues. Lying is immoral and murder is immoral. That's not an opinion but a fact. Sorry relativists - that never changes. There's not situation that makes lying moral .
Because there 2 conflicting values we use our God given judgment. So we lie to save our friend - we just accept that it was the best thing possible given the circumstances. But that doesn't make lying a MORAL thing to do by any means. It was made necessary. Necessary does equal moral. That is not moral relativism. That is situational ethics. They are entirely different concepts -- a freshman philosophy student should know that. I seriously wonder about the author's lack of credentials.
Moral absolutism will lead to men imposing their will upon others, and inevitably to bloodshed.
Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by drevill
Which make the stats of secular charities all that more impressive. Thank you for sharing that.
Oh, BTW, religious or secular, charities help everyone despite their religious beliefs, unless of course, your a prejudicial a*ho**.
Please try to think a little more before bigotry gets the best of your better nature.