The Instigator
Upriser
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chelicerae
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Good and Evil Does Not Exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
Chelicerae
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,244 times Debate No: 24638
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Upriser

Pro

Round 1) Acceptance
Round 2) Main Arguement
Round 3) Each Side Gives Rebuttals
Round 4) Answer to Rebuttals, Final Arguement


Chelicerae

Con

I accept your debate. I would like to define our terms for this debate.

Good- something conforming to the moral order of the universe

Evil-morally reprehensible

Exist- to have real being whether material or spiritual

Source of definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Upriser

Pro

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The terms of good and evil which I will use in order to avoid confusion are:

Evil-Profoundly immoral

Good-To be desired or approved of. In other words to be morally right.

Moral- Principles concerning between right and wrong

Source of definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com...


==Morality==

"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right)"

Morality Changes
Since Morality is based off of an individuals philosophy, religion and culture, morality itself both takes up countless of different shapes and forms and therefore remains inconsistent and contradictory. If most of us were to consider childhood marriage, for example, most of us would find it a repulsive thought and one which is morally wrong. In other widespread areas around the world however, such as Rural India, Africa and rustic parts of Asia, child marriage is much more common and is generally accepted by certain jurisdiction, thus not making it morally incorrect. It is estimated that "In Mali, the female:male ratio of marriage before age 18 is 72:1; in Kenya, 21:1.[12]



Morality Is Diverse
Aside from the above reasons which might take morality to its extremity, we will take a look between the Big Issues themselves. Socialism for example is a subject in which much of the European and western powers find despicable, due to its potential for corruption. In several nations located in Africa and Asia however, socialism is part of the norm and is also a philosophy which moral is based upon, so therefore what we find as a morally coded flawed philosophy, they find it perfectly ordinary. Currently, as of today, there are exactly 4 different socialist countries, respectively the People's Republic of China, Republic of Cuba, Lao's People Democratic Republic and Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Current Socialist Republics include the Republic of India, North Korea, Sri Lanka and Tanzania.


The flaws with the belief of that morality exist is based upon the fact of diversity. Because there are many nations which have a different standard of moral codes which contradict one another, there is no generally accepted rule for morality. There is absolutely no way of proving what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Though morality itself does exist at a singular state, the very distinction of morality changes from culture to culture.


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...




Chelicerae

Con

=Definitions=

Firstly, I would like to note that my argument conforms to the definitions I provided in Round 1. I do not accept my opponents definitions. My opponents definition of evil states that it must be 'profoundly' immoral, when I contend that all immoral actions are evil. Furthermore, my opponents definition of good is anything that is desired or approved of. However, I feel that is not a good definition of good in terms of morality, as immoral actions are desired and approved of by the person doing it.

For these reasons, I will be using my own definitions as stated in Round 1. (I accept his definition of morality.)

=Introduction=

Pursuant to the rules my opponent provided in Round 1, I will not be providing my refutations in this round. Rather, I only have to provide my own argument against the resolution. In order to refute the resolution, I must prove that people differentiate between right and wrong. The fact that these differentiations might be subjective has no bearing on their existence. It only refutes the idea that there is no objective idea of right and wrong.

=Argument=

There are aspects of the world that could not function properly if no such thing as good and evil exists. In my argument, I will talk about these things, and show that good and evil do exist.

P1: Law

The laws of a nation rely entirely on the idea of good and evil. If good and evil did not exist, society would have no way of maintaining order and punishing immoral acts. When a person commits a crime such as murder, the crime is investigated, the culprit is found, and he is brought to trial and jailed. This is because, as a society, we deem that persons actions to be morally wrong. If it was not morally wrong, we would have no reason to spend the resources required to investigate and punish the crime.

Since nations establish laws punishing immoral acts, we can conclude that there is a standard of good and evil. This standard may be subjective for that nation, but this has no bearing on the fact that some type of standard exist. If standards of good and evil do not exist, then nations could not pass laws, and there would be chaos. As the Archbishop John Ireland says, 'Law is order in liberty, and without order liberty is social chaos.'

P2: Decision Making

Evidence of our ability to differentiate between right and wrong is most prominent in our every day decision making, It is our ability to make the most logical choices that allows us to survive from day to day. Our ability to look at the options and decide what the 'bad' option and the 'good' option is proves that there is a standard of right and wrong, bad and good. If these standards did not exist, how do we know that driving your car off a bridge would be a bad choice? If these standards did not exist, how do we know that jumping off the top of a skyscraper s a bad idea?

Even when my opponent denies the existence of right and wrong, he is himself asserting their existence! By debating this subject, he argues that the idea good and evil exists is wrong, thereby proving bad and good exists!

P3: War Criminals

Look at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is an organization is a tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This court has brought many evil people to justice. If standards of right and wrong do not exist, what right does the ICC have to punish these people? For if there is no such thing as right and wrong, then people like Charles Taylor of Liberia and Ratko Mladić of Serbia cannot be brought to justice.

Look at the most famous example of genocide in the history of our planet; the Nazi genocide. At the conclusion of the war, we gathered Nazi leaders and generals who were complicit in the holocaust, put them on trial, and brought them to justice. This is because we thought that their actions were morally reprehensible and worthy of severe punishment. If my opponent is correct, the death of millions of people would have gone unpunished.

=Conclusion=

If standards of good and evil did not exist, our world would look different than it does today. Unfortunately for my opponent, the entire world functions based off ideas of good and evil, right from wrong. If he can show that my three points are not dependent on moral values, then my argument stands defeated. If he cannot, then standards of good and evil exist.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Upriser

Pro

Upriser forfeited this round.
Chelicerae

Con

It seems my opponent has deactivated his account. Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
Upriser

Pro

Upriser forfeited this round.
Chelicerae

Con

=Arguments extended=

I think the vote should be obvious.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Chelicerae 5 years ago
Chelicerae
I'm not that offended when you consider this is coming from a moral nihilist.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Con's arguments are SO bad that, even with forfeits, it probably deserves a tie at best. Except, Pro's arguments are also shitty.

Look, this debate isn't about who won--it's about who loses less. Con, if you want to debate this subject again, send me a debate challenge.
Posted by jbeaver212 5 years ago
jbeaver212
Leaning Con at this point, but Pro still has a chance to prove me wrong.
Posted by ADT_Clone 5 years ago
ADT_Clone
Well Pro didnt mention anything about good/evil. But naturally good/evil are simply the extremeties of a SINGLE morality, so Pros argument kind of fits with Cons position.
They have to be subjective.

If you were debating the existance of an absolute or universal good/evil, Pros argument would have a stronger footing.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
Good and evil DO not exist, you mean. You should probably give definitions for them too.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
UpriserCheliceraeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF -- his account is no longer active
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
UpriserCheliceraeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF