Ethics of Terraforming
Debate Rounds (4)
ethical-pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. www.dictionary.com
terraform-to alter the environment of (a celestial body) in order to make capable of supporting terrestrial life forms.
I welcome Con to explain in the first round exactly why terraforming is not ethical, and round 2 will be used for arguments on both sides. Round 3 will be used for counter arguments and round 4 will be for conclusion.
I thank Con in advance, and I am looking forward to a great debate.
At best the act of terraforming is without moral implication because it affects no life and is comparable to me taking a lifeless rock out of my driveway and smashing it with a hammer.
At worst, the simple act of terraforming a planet is unethical, or of negative moral implication, because the process unnecessarily risks human life.
I look forward to my opponent's affirmations.
Con states that there may be no moral implications to terraforming, however, I refute this, due to the fact that terraforming may one day save the human species (and maybe other terrestrial life forms) when the earth finally is destroyed in one of the many scenarios of its destruction. Obviously, it is ethical to save lives that would otherwise be lost, when we are able to, and we can use terraforming to indeed save the innocent.
As for the lives that could possibly be lost during terraforming, they would be equivalent to construction workers losing their lives, or window washers, or any other worker. We don't say it is unethical to paint a bridge because the painters are at risk of falling and dieing? Obviously not.
Con has not negated my resolution so far. I look forward to your response.
/// I refute this, due to the fact that terraforming may one day save the human species (and maybe other terrestrial life forms) when the earth finally is destroyed in one of the many scenarios of its destruction. ///
In this scenario it is not the terraforming that is the moral action. It is the saving of human life using terraforming as the vehicle.
I will again use the example of me breaking a rock. If I break a rock there is no moral implication to my action. If I break a rock that is blocking a cave where a Boy Scout Troop is trapped them it is not the breaking of the rock that is the moral action, it is the saving of life that is the moral action.
This is because my opponent is advocating an aspect of absolute morality by stating that terraforming is a moral/ethical action. Therefore he has to show that in all circumstances it is of positive moral implications to terraform.
This is true of the terraforming because it is not necessary to terraform only in times of need. The resolution does not state any qualifiers, only that the simple act of terraforming is ethical. It is not.
The resolution is negated, I await my opponent's response.
Brendan21 forfeited this round.
Brendan21 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years 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:||0||4|
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.