The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A theory that claims to contain the only values that really justify laws and actions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 86980
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




This is a theory that claims to contain the only values that really justify laws and actions

First, for this theory I have to define how to justify (objectively), because if we have different ways to justify objectively, we won"t reach anything.
Well, justifying has stations. We"ll now determine those stations. The last station is the result of justifying, constitutional or moral laws and actions. The first station is facts, because if something isn"t justified by facts it isn"t objective. These facts have to be unchangeable, because if they"re changeable, they have to be justified. One could say that this wouldn"t work, but let"s just suppose it"s possible, as if it isn"t possible, there"s no objective truth and this would however be the way to determine objective truth, there just wouldn"t be any case where it fits. However it"s possible. An important station between those two stations is the basic values, the step from unchangeable facts to the responsibility to do something. Between the basic values and laws & actions, there can be many or no stations in between, depending from case to case. These potential stations can be represented by the station goals.
So, resuming: Facts -> Basic values -> Goals -> Laws & Actions

How should one make the step from an unchangeable fact to the responsibility to do something ? Well, there are two types of unchangeable facts. First static facts, like water is constituted by H2O. That doesn"t lead to anything. Second dynamic facts, an unchangeable process, like evolution. Only a fact that actively does something can create a responsibility to do something. The term dynamic is chosen a bit badly, as the fact doesn"t change. However, in such a process, we have to have a unit of individuals (It can also be only one.) that has a goal, what will be basic value.

By the end, we will have found five objectively legitimated basic values.

We take the process of evolution and split it up into two selections
First Two:
Unchangeable Fact: The external selection:
The external selection describes an evolutionary process, the selection of species. Species are in a competition for food resources, habitats, etc. and they will ever be. Some species will survive. Others won't. It will always be made a selection. In this process, every species is a unity, with the goal of preserving and expanding the own species. It's not like a common goal coincidentally shared by all individuals of a species, but this goal simply is there. Therefore:
Basic Value (for humans): Preservation and Expansion of the human species.
However, life as a hole also makes a genetic progress by this selection. Therefore:
Basic Value (theoretically for every living thing): Genetic Progress of living things

"Second" Two:
Unchangeable Fact: The internal selection:
This selection plus the external selection are indeed everything that decides when any individual will live and die and how it will be while living. So both selections resume evolution.
However, internal selection describes the selection of individuals within a species. Some individuals will reproduce more than other individuals and the gene pool will be changed. In species with two sexes, this selection is represented in the partner choice, where a partner with good genetics is prefered over a partner with bad genetics.
In this case, we have the individual as a unity with the goal of reproducing.
Basic Value (for everyone on his own): Spread of own genetics
But, we have also the unity of the species with the goal of making a genetic progress.
Basic Value (for humanity): Genetic Progress of humanity

Unchangeable Fact: Objective justified values exist, if one knows about them or not. So, for the case of other values, one shall know them. So, as values are legitimated by general facts, we have to produce general facts, in other words, science.
Basic Value (theoretically for all living things, even if in this case it doesn"t change anything as we as humans are the only species able to do science): Production of and handling of unchangeable facts / Science


Ok, I accept this "debate" under the grounds that is less of a debate as it is an exchange of ideas. You provided a theory, and in this round I will critique it, and later flesh out my own. Thank you!

Ok, so, things are inherently true or false, right or wrong, so there is no need for justification, except for human appeasement. I agree with your stations, except I want to add something. The values, or the need to do something imply an objective standard. As this standard must exist, we must have values. We justify these values with facts, but the values are self authenticating if true, and self refuting if false. We just don"t know until we justify them. You ask, "how should one make the step from unchangeable facts to moral obligations?" I answer, God. God is inherent in your theory, and in mine as well. We cannot avoid this question. Is there God? Ok you surmise that we have 5 legitimated values, and I"ll entertain that thought.

( ""Basic Value (for everyone on his own): Spread of own genetics
But, we have also the unity of the species with the goal of making a genetic progress.
Basic Value (for humanity): Genetic Progress of humanity"")

But there is no justification for these values. I argue that the spread of genetics is not justified unless ordained by a standard, ie God. For example, "Go forth and multiply". You also sort of beg the question by saying unity of the species is a moral necessity. Who says? Can you justify that?
Invoking evolution does not solve this problem, neither does it validate your theory. It just raises more questions. If I disturb the unity of my species, and the spread of genes, isn"t that just an evolutionary trend? Am I wrong to do that? What if cats evolve to be superior to humans, are humans "justified" any longer?

I answer these questions with God, as I am a theist. However, do not mistake this for the God of the Gaps approach. It simply is an application of Occams razor.

Lastly, I feel as though you presupposed science and evolution and you undercut philosophy. Philosophy is inherent in your theory, and in science. I am reluctant to base a theory around evolution, as it is not 100 percent proven or evidenced.

My theory is one that progresses as i gain knowledge. Anything that is inconsistent with itself, and with known facts, is false. I look forward to hear your ideas.
Debate Round No. 1


I also thank you to accept the debate.
(I didn't answer chronically.)

You asked the question if god exists. Do answer with my opinion, I first need to have a definition of the god we talk about. I can already state that I am an atheist, I don't believe in an almighty person that is god. For this, I don't see enough proofs to believe it and almightyness is in contradiction to the laws of physics.
However, one could also speak about an other sort of god, therefore I ask for the definition, also to debate your added station. I think you can combine this question with your theory.
Also, I can't answer to your adding of the station objective standard/god, as it's depending on the definition of god.

I have to agree, evolution isn't proved. Some aspects of it, as the existence of genetics, are proved, other aspects, as the possibility that one species can become two different species, aren't proved.
For my theory, we need following assumptions to be facts:
R59;Species can't interbreed
R59;Some Species die
R59;The existence of genetics
R59;Species have existential needs
R59;Some Individuals reproduce more or less than others
These assumptions are conditional for the existence of external and internal selection, and these assumptions are facts. [If Species A and Species B can interbreed on long therm (not only make sterile hybrids) then the Species is Species AB.]

You say, if some reproduce less or if someone disturbs the unity of its species, it's part of an evolutionary trend and it is justified. That's a very good point.
If something is an evolutionary trend, it is caused by our genetics. If someone isn't able to understand and accept this theory because of his genetics, than I, able to understand and accept this theory, try to handle this. In the case of a value affecting each one individually, like the spread of the own genetics, I am not in the duty to affect him to accept these values, as it doesn't affect me and him as one unity. However, if someone doesn't respect the value preservation and expansion of humanity, it affects me and I have to try to change this situation, to handle it. One could say it like this, I have to handle the genetic potential of humanity and try to promote this potential as much as possible.

You ask, if cats become superior to humans, are humans not "justified" anymore ?
Well, this depends on which species one is part of.
If one is a cat, the existence of humans isn't justified necessarily and one isn't in the duty to take into account the existence of humans. Only in the case that humans are an important part of a food chain of which cats are dependent, the existence of humanity is indirectly a necessity for cats.
Vice versa, we as humans have no direct duty to preserve cats, again only if they are an important part of ou food chains, then we have the indirect duty to preserve them, but based on the value preservation and expansion of humanity.

Why is the unity of humanity a moral necessity ?
Both of me described selections include, besides perhaps god, everything that decides what lives, how it lives and what dies. In the external selection we are simply a unity because of the fact, that we as humanity, as one species, take our places in the food chains, not as bigger or littler unit. Sure, food chains are local, therefore some ethnicities are in other food chains than other ethnicities, however, we have the same existential needs and it doesn't affect the food chains which ethnicity now consumes the food sources. Also, genetically, we are a unity trough the fact, that we can reproduce with another, not with individuals of another species and not exclusively with individuals of our ethnicity. These facts remain. Other criterias to define a moral unity, variate. A culture can divide up or mix with another, same as a religion can split up in different persuasions (perhaps wrong word, I use Google Translator). You can't do much with these criterias. It surely as an influence on the surviving and the genetic level, but they aren't deciding.

You asked how the values Genetic Progress of the own species and Spread of the own genetics are justified. Well, it's the same as the other two values resulting from external selection, just in a smaller scale. The unity of all life forms is replaced by the species and the species is replaced by the bloodline.
If we agree that the value preservation and expansion of humanity is justified by this theory (if this is the case), spread of the own genetics is justified, too, as it is justified the same way in a smaller scale.
Also, the genetic progress of all life form is the unchangeable goal of the external selection, same as genetic progress of the own species is the unchangeable goal of the internal selection.
If you don't agree on this values, I have to ask you to show me where you see a gap in my theory.

I'm looking forward to read your arguments and your theorie.


I really like your thoughts, but I would just like to say that I believe in the Christian God specifically, and in Jesus. Pretty much it.

Also, I feel like preservation and optimization of genes is indeed important, but without God what can we use to justify it?
Furthermore, why are we even here? How do we know that this is the case? What if we are being tricked?

Now, I know i sound like Renee Descartes, but bear with me.

My Theory/Rant:

Ok, so you and I have thought right? How do I know that you exist and aren't in my imagination only? heck, how do I know if Im not a brain in a jar, or a simulation?

There are two possibilities, we don't actually exist, or we actually do exist.

Ok, assuming we exist, in reality, what is our purpose, and how can we know it?

My answer, is based on knowing the truth.
I have a theory, that intertwines with Christian theology.

True things exist right? Otherwise everything is false. The statement "This statement is false", would then be true, which is a contradiction. Therefore truth exists.

Ok, if I make a statement, it should be true, but it may be false.
Let's say I make a true statement. Let's say someone else makes a false statement.
Who decides who is right?
We need authority to do this.

So we have truth, and we have an authority justifying that truth.
So now we have a reason to believe the truth.
I call that logic. Logic is the "Way", because it stems from the Word of the Authority, and is upheld by truth. If you apply Logic in its fullness, you will reach the Truth, which is true because of the Authority. Essentially, truth (Holy Spirit), stems from Authority (Father God), and Logic, (Jesus) is the ever present extension of authority, resounding and confirmed by the Truth. Logic is logical because authority is backing it.

This is why we can make true statements. This is why we have a reason to believe them. This is how we know they are true.

Truth, Authority, and Logic.
Now in the Bible, Jesus is called Logos, and the Holy Spirit is called the spirit of truth at times. The father is also referred to as Power, which i call authority. Feel free to be skeptical.

Next flow of ideas:

If things have meaning, then truth exists.
Things have meaning, so truth exists.

In order for something to be true, it has to be justified, otherwise, everything can be true.
Not everything is true, therefore justification, or authority behind truth must exist.

If there is an ultimate power that sends and confirms truth, there is an obligation to follow the truth. Otherwise the authority isn"t authority.

Now what path do we follow? To find truth, we must be logical.

For me, that feels Christian.

In regards to evolution and atheism, I can"t really accept these unless there is justification. Then i will believe it, but atheism is hard to believe, because there isn"t an authority imho.
i would love feedback, and to hear your thoughts.
Debate Round No. 2


I'll perhaps repeat myself a bit in the statements.

Without authority, god, you say, truth isn't justified. In this sense, I can agree. If there's no authority behind truth, there is no obligation to follow it, it isn't justified that you habe to follow it. However, this situation doesn't create authority.
My reflection about this is, that there is a truth, and is justified, but there is no obligation to follow the truth. However, I follow the truth as the truth establishes order.

You say that it's God, the authority to justify the truth. Rather, I'd say, he's only the obligation to follow the truth.

You spoke about the possibility that we could also be a brain in a jar etc.. I agree. You don't make any statement based on this reflection. However, I will write my idea to this. It could be possible that we aren't really here etc.. In this case, it's indifferent what we do, as we either don't influence anything or either we don't know at all how we influence something and we can't do much to influence "right". So we can't orientate our decisions on the possibilty and in the case that we really are here, etc. we can decide how we take influence on something, therefore we can only orientate on this possibility.
I think you already think same about this as you too didn't speak about the possibility that we are being tricked.

You also spoke about our purpose and meaning. These terms are very vague.

I think we don't have a really reason to believe the truth, as I don't believe in the authority obligating me to do this. I can simply ignore the truth or value it.

You said "If you apply Logic in its fullness, you will reach the Truth, which is true because of the Authority". I'd rather say "If you apply Logic in its fullness, you will reach the Truth, which is true because you have applied Logic in its fullness".

I see a logical gap in your step from declaration of truth, authority and logic to the Holy Spirit, Father God and Jesus. Truth, authority and logic is rather general while the trinity is specific from a specific book of laws.

I'm looking forward to read your considerations.


I think the main confusion lies in us as humans.

But i consider what youve said.
Debate Round No. 3


What do you mean by this ?


Vapeo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Fabrice forfeited this round.


Vapeo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fabrice 8 months ago
Me too :)
Cheers !
Posted by Vapeo 8 months ago
Im actually enjoying this as I have gained a new perspective. Cheers to intellectualism!
Posted by Fabrice 8 months ago
Well I can't argue against if you reject justification, as arguing is justifying.
Posted by canis 8 months ago
Nothing against theory. Nothing against actions....Everything against "claims"..."values"..And justifycation.
Posted by Vapeo 8 months ago
Im fine with that.
Posted by Fabrice 8 months ago
I don't know if you're talking with me or themohawkninja, as I can't concentrate at the moment, so I simply reply to it for the case you meant it to me.
In this case, we're discussing about the definition of what a fact is. I also included changeable situations to be facts. But if you don't, I can agree so that we see facts for this discussion to be only unchangeable facts.
Posted by Vapeo 8 months ago
i dont believe facts can change, otherwise there is no basis for accepting facts in the first place.

Also, a fact is something that is actually the case. If it is not the case that something was actually the case, the it is actually the case that said thing wasn't the case.

In other words, facts dont change, they are objective.
Posted by Fabrice 8 months ago
As we can't change an unchangeable fact, we have to accept the fact and handle it, while a changeable fact is a changeable because we can influence it, therefore we don't have to accept, rather we don't have to tolerate it.
Posted by Fabrice 8 months ago
Indeed a fact doesn't have to be justified, I expressed wrong. When I wrote this, I thought about like the fact that something is forbidden by the law doesn't justify that it is forbidden by the law and that people die due to gun violence doesn't justify that they have to die to due gun violence.
Posted by themohawkninja 8 months ago
Why does a fact have to be justified if it can change?

It's a fact that a given number of people die due to gun violence in the U.S., but this fact changes per year with the number of people who die. How would I go about justifying this fact, when its' just a truthful statement?
No votes have been placed for this debate.