Family Guy's Peter Griffin is a morally repugnant character.
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ndedo 3 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. RFD not even necessary
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.