The Instigator
Surtr
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
RiskTaker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

A World Without Lies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Surtr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,235 times Debate No: 51366
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Surtr

Con

This debate is about whether a world without lies would either (Pro) morally correct/good or (Con) morally incorrect/evil. I will take the position of con.

Good-beneficial to the human race as a general whole.
Evil-detrimental to the human race as a general whole.
Lie-a deliberate deception engineered to hide or conceal truth, for any reason.
Truth-a fact, something that is inherently correct; the manner something clearly is/the way it clearly occurred.

In this debate, morality will be assumed as subjective. Round 1 is for acceptance.
Best of luck to my opponent!
RiskTaker

Pro

Alright then.
Debate Round No. 1
Surtr

Con

I would like to begin this debate first by thanking my opponent RiskTaker for accepting my challenge, and assume from here forward that by his acceptance of the debate he has agreed upon the stated definitions.

Argument One: The Employment Situation

I invite the audience to envision the following scene:
In the world without lies, one man (A) and another man (B) are both applying for a job. (A) happens to have a disorder that weakens his ability to carry out the job in question. (B) suffers no such illness, and is able to do the job better than (A). As a result, (B) is chosen for the job while (A) remains unemployed.

In world with lies, the employer may give the job to (A) rather than (B) in a show of pity for (A), choosing (A) as "the best man for the job" even though most agree (B) is the true better choice. The action of hiring (A) is then effectively a lie, as hiring an employee is an unspoken affirmation that the particular employee was seen best fit for the work. With his increased capacity for work, (B) has a better chance of finding another job instead and therefore is affected less negatively by being turned down for the job.

In summary:

Option 1: (B) is hired

(A)Is jobless, and with his decreased capacity for work is less likely to be hired to a different position.
(B)Has a job.
The job contested is carried out as it should be; the other job is left unfilled by (A).

Option 2: (A) is hired
(A)Has a job.
(B)Is jobless, but his uninhibited capacity for work allows him a higher chance than (A) of finding a different position.

The job contested is carried out a slightly substandard level; the other job is done by (B).
Therefore it may be stated that Option 2 leaves the system in a more advantageous state. As a result, the two people [(A) and (B)] as a whole have achieved a higher benefit from Option 2 than Option 1, thus satisfying the predetermined definition of good (beneficial to the human race as a general whole), assuming that the human race in this instance is represented by the two subjects (A) and (B), the employer of the contested job, and the employer of the "other" job.

Argument Two: The Human Selection Issue

As was visited before, in the world without lies one with a limited capacity for work has an approximately nil chance of gaining a job over a person with a standard working capacity. This category of limited capacity workers includes
"Elderly
"Mentally or physically handicapped
"Sick
Along with a few other groups of people, these would all be considered as having limited work capacities. (http://www.tameside.gov.uk...)
Due to this fact, the aforementioned parties are less likely to get a job or occupation, leading them into unemployment, and consequently, financial hardship. As a result, those with limited working capacities are likely to waste away and die due to the fact that they contribute to society at a substandard level, and so are not cared for by the anti-lie society. While from a utilitarian standpoint this appears beneficial for the general population, these disabled people still have a capacity to work, regardless of that capacity"s limits. Therefore, reduction of this population constitutes a reduction in the net labor force of a society, therefore acting as a detriment to the whole (evil).

Argument Three: Social Impacts

Lies are in many cases the "glue" that holds the fabric of society together, allowing people with differing viewpoints to work together. Tolerance is defined as "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Tolerating a viewpoint different from one"s own involves initiating a fa"ade, or "a way of behaving or appearing that gives other people a false idea of your true feelings or situation" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) , a mask that hides one"s true feeling and values, allowing another person to assume their values are in agreement, accepting the person and enabling the pair to function as a unit towards a common goal with little friction even though they may disagree religiously or otherwise. This pairing of people grows as the masks grow, allowing increasingly larger groups of people to work together, drastically increasing the productivity of society while reducing clashes caused by conflicting ideals. As a result, society created by lies in a place where truth would create bloodshed.

Conclusion

I have shown three ways in which lies improve society as a whole and how using only the truth in the same instances would cause detriment to society. In other words, I have affirmed the evil of a world without lies and affirmed the potential goodness and utility of lies as applied to society.

Having established my main points, in invite my opponent to rebut my statements as he sees fit and remind him that he must not only rebut my statements, but also provide reasoning as to why a world without lies is morally correct.
RiskTaker

Pro

That's a nicely structured argument. I appreciate the organisational skills of Con and shall be taking advantage of this to address the argument section-by-section.

The Employment Situation

If person A cannot do the job as well as person B, my opponent seems to find fault with person B getting the job. Never does Con explain why A deserves the job more than B.

They seem to insinuate that mercy, or sympathy is required for their utopia to function. This utopia is just as unrealistic as the utopia of a world without lies but, unlike a world without lies, Con's world is a world full of retards leading the capable, the weak dominating the strong and the clumsy doing athletics whilst the socially awkward carry out politics. It is a complete shambles and makes absolutely no sense. Why on Earth must you prioritise the guy less capable of getting the job just because the other is more capable of getting another one? That is like turning down a hot babe at a club for the old granny sitting on the bench across the road from it, waiting for her bus just because she is less likely to be able to get hit on by another guy. there is absolutely no sense to it and it is a very self-destructive society that my opponent is proposing (not to mention, dysfunctional).

My opponent attempts to make this out to be Utilitarianism but it sure as hell is not Utilitarianism to prevent the people most capable of a doing a job to not do it. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the majority of humanity to put the best runner on the tracks, the sharpest statisticians calculating risks and analysing progress and the most efficient nurses on duty to care for the sick? I think this is far better for humanity than putting mentally disabled workers in roles while you had the option to put someone who can do the job far better for others that require the service, or good, that the job supplies.

The Human Selection Issue

My opponent seems to be appealing to morality and emotions during this entire argument. The way I understood it is that if the weak die off and the world becomes less populated with them, this is a 'net evil'. This is irrelevant to the debate because in a world without lies, the lie of morality and the illusion of empathy would no longer be of significance. In a world without lies there is only logic and all that matters is what is most logical and efficient and to kill the weak off makes the relative weakness of our species, compared to the other species the world, increase. Thus, it is a net benefit to humanity, and in round one 'good' was defined as 'beneficial to humanity'.

Social Impacts

My opponent goes on to state that the only way for people of different viewpoints to get along is by them lying to each other about the viewpoints, to a degree, in order to 'gel', as he puts it. This is simply not required in a world without lies because everyone will have the same viewpoint; the true one.

In conclusion, a world without lies is more beneficial than detrimental to the human race as a whole and is, therefore, more morally correct than incorrect according to the definition supplied in round one of this debate.

Sources relevant to this round of debate:

Natural selection
(1) Basic overview: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
(2) Detailed history: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...

Utilitarianism

(1) Basic overview: http://www.csus.edu...
(2) Detailed history: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Mental retardation

(1) http://www.nlm.nih.gov...

Definitions relevant to this round of debate:

Efficiency - The state or quality of working in a well-organized and competent way.
Viewpoint - A person’s opinion, particular attitude or way of considering a matter.
True - In accordance with fact or reality.
Fictional belief - A belief or statement which is false, but is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
Morality - Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Debate Round No. 2
Surtr

Con

I am honored that my opponent finds my debate structure appealing. Incidentally, I agree with all of the definitions earlier submitted by Pro.


Rebuttal Concerning The Employment Situation


Section 1


“If person A cannot do the job as well as person B, my opponent seems to find fault with person B getting the job. Never does Con explain why A deserves the job more than B.”


I must admit I am unsure of the process that could have led my opponent to such an erroneous and distorted view of my argument. The argument was not that it was wrong for B to be hired but that in the event that another job was open that A is unlikely to gain while B has no barrier to employment, it is “better” for A to be hired for the first job and B to be hired for the second. It is, at base, simple logic; in Option 1, one job is satisfied while the other position is unfilled, but in Option 2 two, both positions are satisfied. Put simply, two jobs are greater than one (2>1), affirming that the lie is more (to use my opponent’s words) efficient. Efficiency, the state of working in a well-organized matter, improves production as a general rule, therefore I will make the assertion that a society that is more efficient than another benefits the human race as a whole and is therefore good/morally correct. Resultantly, this part of my argument remains standing rather soundly.


Section 2


“They seem to insinuate that mercy, or sympathy is required for their utopia to function.”


Again, this statement is a grotesque misinterpretation of the argument I made. Any and all who read the argument carefully would have noticed that, quite on purpose, the word may was located in the following quote “In world with lies, the employer may give the job to (A) rather than (B) in a show of pity for (A), choosing (A) as “the best man for the job” even though most agree (B) is the true better choice.” This means that in a society incorporating lies, there is a possibility that the aforementioned and defined Option Two will be selected, something that, as explained before, cannot happen in the world without lies. In other words, in a society without lies (in reference to the 2>1 inequality discussed in Section 1) produces one filled job while the lie society produces one job also, but with a chance to fill two jobs instead. Therefore the “utopia”, as my opponent so sardonically calls it, does not necessarily require sympathy to operate, but simply “leaves room” for sympathy, which then may be able to improve the society. In other words, this “utopia” functions at worst the same as a lie-free society and, at best, more efficiently (therefore it is assumed as by the earlier standard to be good/morally correct).


Section Three


“My opponent attempts to make this out to be Utilitarianism but it sure as hell is not Utilitarianism to prevent the people most capable of a doing a job to not do it.”


While this sentence is grammatically confusing, I am going to assume that it means something like the following; “My opponent attempts to say that the weak leading the strong is utilitarianism, however it is obviously not utilitarianism to prevent the most capable person from doing a job.” If this assumed interpretation of the argument my opponent intended to make is wrong, I invite my opponent to skip over Section Three, as it is relevant only if my interpretation was correct. Consequently, I am afraid that if my assumption is correct, my opponent has again failed to grasp the argument. Rather than copying the whole of ‘Argument One: The Employment Situation’, I will reintroduce only the most key sentence and invite my opponent to read the argument again, perhaps more carefully. “(A) Is jobless, and with his decreased capacity for work is less likely to be hired to a different position.” Those who read Argument One closely may recognize this sentence is located under Option 1 under “In summary”. Having restated this sentence, I will assume here onward that my opponent has reread the rest of Argument One. Taken in this full context, the flaw in my opponent’s argument becomes staggeringly clear; the argument does not suggest that the best person is necessarily denied a job. The fact that A is said to be less likely to receive another position, coupled with the complementary fact that B is more likely to receive the position A is unlikely to get. In other words, the filling of the first contested position by A forces B into a job that A could not satisfy with A’s inherent deficiencies. Essentially, this indicates that in Option 2, the more highly skilled workers are guided to positions that require skills to carry out with any effect. This would suggest that Option 2 actually helps fill positions more effectively than Option 1, providing even more support for a world with lies (Option 2) as opposed to the world without (Option 1). Unless I grossly misunderstand the concept of utilitarianism, Option 2 is by definition extremely utilitarian. As my opponent so wisely asks, “Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the majority of humanity to put the best runner on the tracks, the sharpest statisticians calculating risks and analyzing progress and the most efficient nurses on duty to care for the sick?” I would say yes, the aforementioned is highly beneficial to society, and that is precisely what can be caused by Option 2, forcing the prodigies from working at, for instance, Burger Kings to (also for example) being doctors in hospitals. This is more efficient than the lieless world of Option 1 and is therefore considered more "good" than the lieless world.


Rebuttal Concerning The Human Selection Issue


"My opponent seems to be appealing to morality and emotions during this entire argument."


Well then. While to my opponent it is apparent that Argument Two was nothing more than an appeal to emotions and morality (I am unsure what appealing to morality is supposed to entail or why it would be incorrect, considering the entirety of the debate is whether or not a world without lies is morally correct or not), Argument Two was never intended to be emotional. Argument Two only stated that in the society without lies, the weak would be left to die. I then went on to state that this is false utilitarianism. Rather than reiterating the rebuttals for Argument One, I will simply make the assertion that, as the presence of the 'weak' that still work allows Option Two to take place, extermination of these 'weak' is rather inefficient. On the subject of the weak that no longer are able to work, the fact remains that those who are unable to work still generally have the ability to impart wisdom to future generations, possibly increasing efficiency in the future. Again, as this efficiency benefits humankind, it is considered more "good" than the lieless world. It is also interesting to note that it was not until Argument Two that I mentioned utilitarianism, which my opponent mistakenly categorized under and in context to Argument One.


Rebuttal Concerning Social Impacts


"This is simply not required in a world without lies because everyone will have the same viewpoint; the true one."


I will not waste much time on this "rebuttal", as it has no effect unless it can be shown that there can possibly be only one "true" viewpoint. I will be impressed if my opponent can show how an opinion (by his "viewpoint" definition) can be "true" or "false".


Concluding this argument, three things are apparent:


1. My opponent failed to actually address my arguments.


2. As a direct result, my opponent failed to effectively rebut any of my arguments.


3. My opponent dedicated an incredibly scant amount of time making any affirmations of the moral superiority of a world without lies over a world with lies, therefore providing little to no proof that a lieless world is morally correct/good.


As my opponent has so far failed to satisfy any relevant part of the debate, I recommend a vote for Con.


As always, however, I wish my opponent best of luck for round three.

RiskTaker

Pro

RiskTaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Surtr 3 years ago
Surtr
Unfortunately, my opponent seems to have closed his account.
Posted by RiskTaker 3 years ago
RiskTaker
You're going to need it. ;)
Posted by Surtr 3 years ago
Surtr
My first debate here....wish me luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 2 years ago
lit.wakefield
SurtrRiskTakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with Con's position, I did not find all the arguments to be convincing. However, I feel that Pro did a poor job addressing them and was unable to fulfill his/her burden of proof. Con was accurate in pointing this out. I give Con arguments especially on the merit of argument 3 which Pro did the poorest job rebutting with talk of a "true viewpoint." There is no "true" viewpoint in many areas. Even in this hypothetical world without lies, it is absurd to say that there would be one true preference for something like ice cream flavour that all would share. I give conduct to Con because of Pro's forfeit. I do not give sources to Pro because Pro's sources acted more like additional reading as opposed to sources being used to back up his/her points.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
SurtrRiskTakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, giving Con conduct. I found Con's case to be very weak, and I think Pro could have won arguments, but leaving the last round as a forfeit prevented Pro from addressing the problems. I'm tempted to award arguments to Con on the basis of Pro's failure to respond, but the rebuttal given in R2 was pretty darn close to sufficient despite the counter by Con in R3, so, at present, I'm leaving it tied. Fundamentally, Con presented a single type of situation, with a VERY loose definition of "lie", and argued that it held for humanity as a whole. Pro argued that beneficial for humanity as a whole could include the culling of the "weak", so I just don't think this debate ever got generalized enough to really address the motion sufficiently for me to award points for arguments to either side. All other categories were equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.