Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 acceptance
Round 2 opening arguments
Round 3 rebutals
Round 4 closing arguments
Compassion-the intent to use one's skills, resources, knowledge, etc. in ways that are beneficial to all beings
If this debate is well recieved, two more may come on impermanance and reincarnation
I wish my opponent a good match and hope it will be an honest and intelligent debate.
Nice to meet you.
We're missing a key definition, though. What do you mean when you say "most important?" In as precise terms as possible, please :)
I would be glad to give a definition of "most important" and of course you are welcome to challenge it if you disagree.
"Most important"--the thing in a human's life when fulfilled brings the most happiness.
I'll start by describing three levels of compassion: selfish, genuine, and trancendental. Selfish compassion is being compassionate because you believe if you treat others in such a way, the same will come back to you. Genuine compassion is showing compassion for others simply because you know the will be happier. Trancendental compassion is compassion for all beings regardless of circumstance on the basis that this creates a universe in which all beings may be happy.
I feel I must step back a moment and ask, "why is happiness most important?" If you had a million dollars, what use could you find for it. You could buy a house, take care of your family or even give to charity. You can also buy stocks, invest in future technology, and fund projects. Finally can buy off politicians, bully competition, and destroy others work. The first one you increase happiness, but not wealth. The second you increase happiness and wealth. In the third you increase wealth and not happiness. These same scenerios all are in accord with power, fame, physical strength, etc. But the common thread with all of them is they are not good unless they increase happiness. So happiness must be supreme.
I argue compassion is the best way to increase happiness. By heartfeltly caring about and for others we make them happier, and they will most likely reciprocate. Also just caring makes us feel happier as well, giving someone a genuine compliment maked both of us feel better. Finally when we live in a caring universe, made up of compassionate people, we experience the good of happiness with more people, because there is simply more happiness to goaround.
States of mind are the result of complex chemical processes.
The structure of our minds is determined by blind evolution. It chanced upon giving rewards(happiness) to organisms which felt ways(compassion) for their fellows that resulted in greater benefit(reciprocation) for themselves.
The mutation contributed to success, and so has become universal to the brain architecture.
But there's no reason to think that an accidental way of producing happiness is going to be the optimal way to do so.
We have organic features. They provide benefits to us.
Legs --> travel, access to resources
eyes --> superior modeling of environment, and therefore, reactive capabilities
compassion --> reciprocation
But these are accidental hacks by blind evolution. None of them are the best way to achieve the benefits they correspond to. Their very nature makes them exceedingly unlikely to be so.
And so we have artificial transportation (cars, planes, shoes), artificial sight (eyeglasses, telescopes, microscopes), and with sufficient knowledge, we should be able to produce artificial and superior happiness.
It was an accident that made compassion produce happiness. With time, we can improve upon it as we have done upon so many of the other accidents that define our structure, corporeally and cognitively.
We do have ways to improve things like eyesight and legs, but I would like to examine it. Legs can be replaced wheelchairs etc. and made obsolete cars, planes etc. But eyesight has not been replaced, just enhanced. So our sight is enhanced by telescopes, microscopes etc. but the basic function has not been replaced. Blind people have no use for that stuff and even letting them see still does not replace the basic function of sight. Maybe we can replace eyes one day for everyone, to see infered, etc. but sight is not replaced.
I argue compassion is more like sight than legs. Caring about others is the best way to promote happiness, whether in petson, by phone, television or any other technology.
Now you mention artificial happiness. I will introduce the Buddhist concept of emptiness. This concept says all phenomena are empty. So if I take a drug that makes me happy, maybe when I'm on the drug I will be happy. But lets say I miss a dose and become exceedingly unhappy. This is because I didn't really earn the happiness and am now suffering for pass misdeeds. However if I stop taking the drug and am still happy it is because I was sttl a good person on the drug. Actually I don't need the drug at all. This is because the drug is empty and I am the one behind the phenomena.
If we do not develop compassion, we will fail to be happy because happiness stems from knowing we are in a good world. It is easy to be happy in heaven, but could you still maintain it in the Hell realms. It would be exceedingly difficult. So compassion creates a better world where everyone can be happy. If it is enhanced by brilliant people on television or talking to your family on the phone that is good. But if you watch junk or just yell at your family, maybe not so good.
I most certainly said that compassion will not produce the most happiness, which by your definition, is equivalent to saying that it's not the "most important" thing in human existence.
I accept your evaluation of happiness as being more akin to eyesight than to legs. I might put them on a continuum from legs, to eyesight, to happiness, such that happiness is even further beyond our ability to hack than is eyesight.
But the principle remains. Whether we happen to have the technology or not right now, some day we may. The "natural" way of producing happiness is a happy accident and is by its nature unlikely to be the BEST way of doing so.
Now you mention empty happiness. I will introduce the concept of evolution.
Once there was an organism with a capacity to affect the well-being of its fellows. It may or may not have done so, and was no happier either way. Then there was a mutation in the genes of a newborn member of its species. The mutation made the newborn act in odd ways. Its brain injected pleasure hormones into its system when it improved the well-being of its fellows. So it did that a lot, and was often in this weird new mutated brain state.
Is this method of producing the "happiness" brain state inherently the best one? Why should it be? Someday we may have sufficient knowledge of the body to affect the structure of the brain, not on accident (as before), but on purpose, and do better on purpose what was once achieved by accident.
Happiness may incidentally correlate with knowing we are in a good world right now. But the actual CAUSE of happiness is affecting brain states.
Having a model of the world that says it's a good world may INDIRECTLY affect that brain state, but there may some day be a way to DIRECTLY affect that brain state.
Or we may find better indirect ways to do so. Either way.
The reason compassion is successful, the best way to produce happiness, is because when we are more caring towards the world, the world will tend to reflect that. As people are more productive wealth increases. When people are more likely to step in for strangers conflict decreases. When people look out for one another problems are noticed quicker and are more likely to be fixed. The reason compassion is the best way to produce happiness, even if it is as you say "accidental," is because when people genuinely care about each other, especially beyond race and borders, there are more happiness opportunities to go around for everyone. Thus, I would argue, happiness is not just a mindset, but a shared experience that people can have with each other; and it can be just as simple as giving a warm smile to a stranger who is sad.
You have explained why compassion is beneficial and then pointed out that those benefits contribute to happiness.
That makes compassion a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for happiness, as was your opening point.
You could get those same benefits through manipulation, for example, and whatever happiness comes from having the benefits.
But I know from experience, and observation, that people are happy being compassionate for each other even BEFORE the benefits start to kick in. Their compassion itself is a happy experience, you might say.
Now the CAUSE of that has nothing to do with benefits. The CAUSE is the structure of our brains. And the cause behind that is evolution.
And evolution puts together some incredibly neat stuff, but we've matched and surpassed it (in many, but not all things) in 500 years of science what took better than a billion years of evolution. Give us another hundred or two and we'll get the rest.
Evolution is just inherently not a great way to accomplish things, like happiness. The impressive thing about it is not how good of a designer it is, but how well it works, despite how BAD of a designer it is.
Why claim that an intentional effort can never surpass natural selection of genetic mutation? Why claim that such an effort is inherently "emptier" than said mutation?
But, hey, until we can do that, let compassion reign, eh?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses by default due to the fact that they fail to meet their BOP. In R1 both Pro's and Con's positions are defined clearly. In order to negate con must prove that compassion is not the most important aspect of human lives. Con argued that compassion was not the main cause of happiness but never argued for what the actually answer was. Since the only answer that I was presented with in the debate was compassion it's the only source of happiness that I can buy. It's either happiness or nothing and since happiness was explained to me (and conceded by Con) as the most important this means that I need a source of happiness to be explained. Pro did this adequately. Con does give reason to cast doubt upon Pro's case however whilst Pro's arguments were mitigated they are still enough to affirm because Con's burden was left unfulfilled throughout the entirety of the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.