The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Deku
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does a moral standard (Something that determines right and wrong) Exists outside of humanity ?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,494 times Debate No: 13821
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

Note* If you have any problems with rules or definitions or anything else please explain in the comments section

A moral standard (Something that determines the difference between right and wrong)

I am the pro so will be arguing that a moral standard exists outside of humanity

The opponent will be arguing that no moral standard exists outside of humanity

My opening argument

What if Hitler had won the war, and killed everyone who disagreed with him, does that mean cause everyone left alive thinks the Holocaust was a good moral thing do to, it is a good moral thing to do ? or is something morally wrong even if no human believes it to be wrong

1) Some things are morally wrong even in cases where no one believes that the moral wrong is indeed morally wrong
2) A moral wrong can only exist if there is a moral standard to determine the difference between right and wrong
3) Therefore a moral standard exists outside of humanity
Deku

Con

Always a fun discussion, thanks for posting.

1. The first argument does not show what it seeks to. Sure, if I were somehow teleported to a world where everyone thought Hitler was in the right with my mind and moral standard remaining in their present state, I would still think Hitler was wrong. That does not suggest there is some absolute moral standard- just that my moral standard is capable of taking hypothetical situations into account.

2. If we are to accept that "some things are morally wrong even in the cases where no one believes that the moral wrong is indeed wrong," then some proof is required. Pro must provide some method by which a human action can be objectively evaluated against this external standard and return either a "good" or "bad" response (or something in between of course) or prove this method exists in some other manner.
For example, if you lived in a world where everyone but you believed Hitler was right to attempt to exterminate groups he deemed undesirable how would you go about convincing them that Hitler, and they, were wrong in their belief?
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate topic,

I would note that Con has not refuted my opening argument which was

1) Some things are morally wrong even in cases where no one believes that the moral wrong is indeed morally wrong
2) A moral wrong can only exist if there is a moral standard to determine the difference between right and wrong
3) Therefore a moral standard exists outside of humanity

First up

Con says "If we are to accept that "some things are morally wrong even in the cases where no one believes that the moral wrong is indeed wrong," then some proof is required"

You are correct but remember its just not enough to argue against my case you also have to argue for your case in the affirmative as stated before......

I am the pro so will be arguing that a moral standard exists outside of humanity

The opponent will be arguing that no moral standard exists outside of humanity

Con says -

"For example, if you lived in a world where everyone but you believed Hitler was right to attempt to exterminate groups he deemed undesirable how would you go about convincing them that Hitler, and they, were wrong in their belief?"

In my thought experiment no one believes the Holocaust was a moral wrong, in fact they believe its is morally good, so there is no one to try and "convince" anyone one else other wise. So in my thought experiment to where no one believes the holocaust is morally wrong, its a contradiction to then say how would some one go about convincing other people they are morally wrong.

That's kinda the whole point of the thought experiment, no body believes the thing in question (the holocaust) is morally wrong, which brings us back to the topic, does a moral standard only exist in humans or is there a moral standard outside of humanity

Thought experiment 1)

So in this thought experiment where no on believes the holocaust is morally wrong and is morally good, where no moral standard exists outside of humanity

1) Everyone believes that the holocaust is morally good
2) There is no moral standard outside of humanity
3) Therefore the holocaust is morally good

Thought experiment 2)

So in this thought experiment where no on believes the holocaust is morally wrong and is morally good, where there is moral standard that exists outside of humanity

1) Everyone believes that the holocaust is morally good
2) There is a moral standard outside of humanity
3) Therefore the holocaust could be morally wrong

Anyone who believes that the holocaust is morally wrong based on humanity being the moral standard must confront the problem in scenario 1.

My argument still is

1) Some things are morally wrong even in cases where no one believes that the moral wrong is indeed morally wrong
2) A moral wrong can only exist if there is a moral standard to determine the difference between right and wrong
3) Therefore a moral standard exists outside of humanity
Deku

Con

Deku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Consider my Con forfeited a round ill, I will make this brief.

In thought experiment 1) isn't based on some impossible world, it is indeed the case that all people could agree that something is morally right or morally wrong.

Con says "I would still think Hitler was wrong. That does not suggest there is some absolute moral standard"

But with no moral standard outside of humanity, your morality is no more right or wrong that Hitlers morality'.

What is your moral justification for asserting that Hitler committed moral wrongs ?
On what moral basis do you believe that your morality is better than Hitler ?

My argument still is

1) Some things are morally wrong even in cases where no one believes that the moral wrong is indeed morally wrong
2) A moral wrong can only exist if there is a moral standard to determine the difference between right and wrong
3) Therefore a moral standard exists outside of humanity
Deku

Con

Deku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Oh O, I think my opponent has left.
Deku

Con

Deku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
Deku

Con

Deku forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
I could argue if i was pro, sigh...
I mean, why do you think the ants protect their queen?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Corrected,
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
"Hither"

Hah. You should correct it to "Hitler." But good debate topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
IllegalcombatantDekuTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70