The Instigator
Mpecora
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jcorbett
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Child Suicide Bombers vs. Moral Relativism

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: 5/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 53840
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Mpecora

Pro

1. Child Suicide bombing is the act of deceit used by Muslim extremists to use children as a transport for explosives, telling them either they will survive, what is being attached to them is not a bomb, or they will die but will go to paradise.
2. The actions that these terrorists coerce the children into doing directly causes the unlawful and immoral death of innocents.
3.Children are not consenting adults and cannot agree to these terms even if they were moral
________________________________________________________________________________________
4.The usage of child suicide bombers by the Taliban is not morally excused by any moral relativism argument
Jcorbett

Con

1. Interpretations of religious works are subjective and can vary drastically from person to person.
2. You can not determine that those involved in suicide bombings will not be going to paradise as it is impossible to determine what, if anything, happens after death.
3. Your own cultural background may be obstructing your view on this issue
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. It can not be determined whether or not this is excusable by moral relativism.
Debate Round No. 1
Mpecora

Pro

The premise that no one knows what happens after death and these bombers might actually go to paradise may be true, but it is still no excuse or justification for the actions based on moral relativism. Firstly, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that an afterlife exists at all, and although people are free to believe that there is one if they so choose, it is illogical to support or condone a moral issue based on that.

Also, even if it were 100% true that suicide bombers go to paradise, it still does not make it morally justified. To take another life simply for one's personal gain is immoral. It is an unsustainable moral philosophy that would cause the breakdown of any society that condones it.
Jcorbett

Con

Your conclusion "To take another life simply for one's personal gain is immoral", while likely true, is not necessarily the case in this argument. Wars aren't waged for the benefit of any one person, but rather for the common goal of those are fighting in it. All soldiers who are going of to war are putting there lives on the line and the same standard holds for the children. They are not giving their lives for themselves, but rather for those who have already fallen and those who have yet to fight.

In conclusion, it is not the case that they are taking the lives of others for personal gain, but rather for a common purpose and therefore do not violate the moral philosophy that you claim they do.
Debate Round No. 2
Mpecora

Pro

Well, your first contention was that it is permissible due to the fact that the fact that the children (or any suicide bomber) would go to paradise. Or, at the very least, we cannot prove that they will NOT go to paradise. If that is the case, then I believe my previous argument about killing for one's personal gain still applies.

Now you bring up the argument that the suicide bombings are being done, not for personal gain, but as a war tactic. While this may be true, I find it much more plausible that the war is an excuse to use the children for personal gain. Surely there are more effective weapons and tactics in war than using children strapped with bombs. Even if one would say that this was an effective war tactic because no one expected this from children, those days are long gone as everyone (in the countries where these bombings occur) are aware of the use of children and are no longer caught off guard.

in addition, the "All's far in love and war" saying is primitive and incorrect. Killing soldiers on a battlefield is permissible in war because presumably, all these soldiers have signed up for the services, and are aware of the risks. In the case of the children, they cannot consent, and are brainwashed from birth.
Jcorbett

Con

I don't necessarily agree with you saying that "All's fair in love and war" is a "primitive" and "incorrect" statement. The reason that phrase exists is when situations like this are taking place. The entire way of life for these people is being changed, and whether or not you agree with how they live, that is how their world functions. When one's world is beginning to completely collapse around them, they will do what ever it takes to defend it. In order for your statement to stand, you will pretty much have to say that your way of living is better or more valuable than theirs is. I'm not saying that I agree with the way they operate, but I'm not in any position to pass judgement on them because I don't live in that society.

Without being in the position of these people or being able to see just how much they stem to lose in this, it can be determined whether or not their methods are crossing the line.
Debate Round No. 3
Mpecora

Pro

Moral relativism is the case that you are making here. Many people agree with it, and it can be applied to some circumstances, but not. The problem with the argument is that if it were valid it would follow that literally any action conceivable is moral justified because it can be correct within someone's culture. To give a very extreme example, blowing up the entire cosmos would be acceptable if you you accept moral relativism and the person who blew it up has a God in their culture who told them this is the correct course of action to be taken.

There are some things that we must accept as objectively morally correct, such as the continued existence of the species. Without the continued existence of the species, We would not even be able to have an argument on whether or not something is morally correct or not, because the species would no longer exist. Anything that is detrimental to the continued survival of the human race must be viewed as immoral and suicide bombers, killing of innocents, and immoral war tactics all fit that bill.
Jcorbett

Con

Is it the case that our species continuing to exist is moral? After all, you claim that the killing of innocents is morally wrong, and what is more innocent than nature? We as a species hold ourselves to a higher standard than the other creatures living on this planet and are constantly draining it of its resources and causing pollution. In turn, that causes the loss of many other species on this planet. The majority, if not all, of the problems in this world stem from us causing destruction, pollution, and death on a large scale.

Given the way we have treated everything else in this world, I don't believe that we as humans are in any position of being able to decide what is or is not morally right in first place.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.