The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Family Guy's Peter Griffin is a morally repugnant character.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 41319
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that the cartoon character Peter Griffin from Family Guy is a morally repugnant character.
I will present arguments and evidence that supports my assertion, and my opponent will have to do the same, in order to argue that Peter Griffin is morally sound.

I will allow my opponent to present any arguments which are seen to be relevant to support their assertion that Peter Griffin, is not a morally repugnant character.


Peter Griffin acts to childish to be morally repugnant character plus he doesn't like Louis
Debate Round No. 1


Peter Griffin, based on the moral consensus of any Western society is a morally repugnant character.
To address a comment: I realise that he is a cartoon, this is why I have used the term 'character' in the title of the debate, not 'person' or 'human'. Those who create Peter Griffin are accountable in choosing how he behaves and the decisions he makes, however this debate is to do with Peter's behaviour in regards to morality, not a question of the morality of his creators, as this debate is not about any sort of accountable creator; this debate pertains only to Peter Griffin from family guy and it is assumed that within his world, he is responsible for his own behaviour. I will show that Peter Griffin is a morally reprehensible cartoon character.

There have been shown numerous occasions where Peter Griffin has been showed to have a lack of regard for the consequences of his actions; how said actions effect others' thoughts, feelings, and physical presence in the world does not seem, in numerous circumstances, to be of any importance to Peter Griffin.

(1) states that "throughout the course of the series Peter has caused much misery for those around himself: often this is due to stupidity but there have been times when Peter has deliberately caused harm or misfortune on others to better himself" showing that not all of his morally corrupt behaviour can be attributed to his stupidity. In one episode after Peter found out that he was technically mentally retarded, he took advantage of the situation, behaving in horrible ways as he knew he could get away with it, as he thought himself not accountable for his own actions.

1. Ernie the Giant Chicken: When Peter is engaged in a fight with Ernie, a giant chicken, he does not seem to care whether his actions might kill the chicken, nor does he seem to care for any collateral damage that happens as a consequence of his engagement in these fights. Now you might say that the chicken is a chicken and therefore any actions carried out towards the chicken are void of moral judgement, however, the chicken has been shown to talk and show human cognitions. As far as the collateral damage, Peter and Ernie have jointly destroyed or substantially damaged (also highly probably killing people in the process) a cruise ship, a ferris wheel, a train station and an oil rig (2).

2. In order to get a promotion at work, Peter accidentally burns down part of a children's hospital causing 14 deaths. After this, he does not show much remorse for his actions; there is no attempt to seek redemption and Peter still hopes to achieve promotion (3).

3. Peter shows a lack of regard for his own family on numerous occasions, especially his daughter Meg, going out of his way to hurt or humiliate her. As (1) informs us, Peter's behaviour towards Meg includes "talking down to her, farting in her face, beating her up, nearly drowning her, and in a cutaway gag, shoots her simply because she says, 'Hi Dad.'". Also (1) asserts that Peter "Crosses the moral event horizon" in an episode where he throws his baby son Stewie under a moving car so that his wife will run him over. Peter knows that this would cause his wife Lois to feel the responsibility that Peter himself should feel for causing Stewie's infected head wounds in the first place. He is passing the blame so as to not get in trouble, whilst his son could actually die from his decisions.



natha45rwe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


As Con forfeited the last round I shall not bring up any new arguments/points and allow Con to respond in the next round, if they would like to continue the debate.


Family guy the best show ever and Peter Griffin does care about his actions because he thinks twice before doing so too.
Debate Round No. 3


This debate was not supposed to be about whether one likes Family Guy or thinks it is "the best show ever"; I enjoy Family Guy, however, is is evidently not the point of the debate. This debate was supposed to be about the morality of the show's character Peter Griffin.

Con has not refuted any of my points regarding Peter Griffin's morality, nor brought up any points of their own.
Saying that Peter Griffin "does care about his actions because he thinks twice before doing so too" supported by nothing at all must be a joke, because it does not quality as an attempt to debate.


Sorry got kinda side tracked but Peter Griffin is not mortally resurgent character because he has no sense of thought (I wish I was the pro side of the debate)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ObesePigeon 3 years ago
In response to OceansideRamona.....

"Peter Griffin is a cartoon character, not an actual person. Because of this, I feel it is illogical to analyze the behavior of said character"
His behaviour is still observable, and as we learn from observable behaviour, his behaviour can still influence others (1). Also it exists, therefore it can be analysed, compared and contrasted.

"Peter Griffin's creator is a morally repugnant character, since they are truly the ones in control of Peter's imagined life and activities" and...
"What if the debate were, Family Guy's Creators Are Morally Repugnant Characters?"
This is simply not true. If I imagine a morally repugnant activity, I am not morally repugnant, the same as if i view a morally repugnant activity and then think about it. If I draw a morally repugnant activity I am not necessarily morally repugnant, as I have not committed a morally repugnant act.
This debate is about the world Peter Griffin inhabits, not the one of his creators (human beings), so accountability can not be passed.
One who believes in a God that has a divine plan could commit morally repugnant acts and then say they are not accountable because of the divine plan, however within their world they are still seen to be a morally repugnant character because of the acts they have committed, and this is the case with the actions of Peter Griffin.
The root cause of ones moral repugnance does not change the observable behaviour of the one in question.

Posted by OceansideRamona 3 years ago
Peter Griffin is a cartoon character, not an actual person. Because of this, I feel it is illogical to analyze the behavior of said character. Peter is the product of imagination which to me means that, regardless of his personality, morals, or beliefs, he is still not a real person, which in my opinion removes any ability to place judgement on said character. Since Peter is not real, this also must mean his actions, thoughts, and feelings are also a product of someone's imagination, therefore removing any accountability from the cartoon character, and instead placing it on the person in CONTROL of Peter's character. Peter Griffin's creator is a morally repugnant character, since they are truly the ones in control of Peter's imagined life and activities. What if the debate were, Family Guy's Creators Are Morally Repugnant Characters?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ndedo 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. RFD not even necessary