The Instigator
TheWarrior
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Nicoszon_the_Great
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Can a single person be worse than any other single person?

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheWarrior
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 45643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

TheWarrior

Con

I am not sure that anyone can be worse than anyone else. Whether or not absolutes exist I think this is still true. If absolutes do exist we are all guilty of doing some wrong which would necessarily condemn us all. If they do not exist then who is to say anyone has done wrong.

If you accept simply state your argument as to why someone can be worse than another.
Nicoszon_the_Great

Pro

Look at how legal systems are usually set up, certain acts are deemed wrong and those acts are divided upon whats more wrong.
For instance, someone steals an apple. That's wrong but it's not so big that anyone should say more than 'Hey, you stop that.'
Then you have a murderer who kills six children and lights them on fire in a ditch.

According to your argument, the first guy is just as bad or on the same level as the second.
Debate Round No. 1
TheWarrior

Con

I agree that legal system are set up to divide certain crimes into what is more wrong. What I am saying is how can we determine what is more wrong? If there is a moral standard to follow everything is black and white with a few exceptions. Therefore if you do wrong then you are in the black no matter what type of act that was. If there is no moral absolutes then everything is gray. If this is the case then no one can either do right or wrong. So yes, both guys in your example are just as bad as each other.

It would seem to me that either way, we have no right to determine whether something is more wrong than another.
Nicoszon_the_Great

Pro

There is a level of common sense that comes with right and wrong. Do you want to be stolen from, raped, beaten, or murdered? No, of course not. Therefor why would you do so to others. Laws are rules that are meant to keep everyone safe and secure, wouldn't you say it's wrong to disturb the peace?

Moral grey is based upon culture and cooperation, to steal an apple doesn't necessarily harm the community as a whole whereas murder does. If you want the most base understanding of right and wrong then consider it mutual cooperation and respect for others.
Debate Round No. 2
TheWarrior

Con

You are right, I do not want to be stole from, raped, beaten or murdered. I am simply saying that I see no difference between any of those horrible things. I think that they are all bad and whether some one is guilty of one of those or of all of them they are guilty. Therefore they are criminals. I think there should be no differentiation between them as such. I also agree that laws are meant to keep people safe and secure. Yes, I would say it is wrong to disturb the peace. If I do disturb the peace would that make me a worse person than say, the guy who stole the apple. I would say both were wrong in my opinion and therefore both people are equally guilty of wrongdoing.

I would disagree with you, and say that stealing, however little, harms the community just as much as murder. Both the loss of product and the loss of a producer hurt a community. It can hurt both economically as well as socially. You will either fear for your life or you will fear for you stuff. Either way the community will fail if both go unchecked. As I see it we cannot say any one person is worse than another. Unless, of course, there is someone who has not sinned. Then everyone is worse than him.
Nicoszon_the_Great

Pro

Nicoszon_the_Great forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
TheWarriorNicoszon_the_GreatTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
TheWarriorNicoszon_the_GreatTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeit causes a loss of conduct points. S&G was pretty even. Con actually made points and expanded on them, while pro just sort if asked questions and claimed common sense. No one used sources.