The Instigator
Spilly
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
krbrimm20
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Governments are immoral

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 364 times Debate No: 82848
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Spilly

Pro

The question of whether or not governments are immoral is actually quite simple. I will put out the following axioms:
1) The initiation of the use of force is immoral
2) Governments cannot exist without initiating force

From this we can conclude that governments are inherently immoral. Governments initiate force through taxation, duties, and through the creation of mandates and laws. The opposite of the initiation of force would be a voluntary action or consent. Governments operste using extortion and force, not voluntary transactions, with its citizens. .
krbrimm20

Con

most governments are like that but they go over what they have done wrong and discuss the issue with country and try there best to solve it to there capabilities.
{1} immoral not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
{2} morality principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
these are the definitions of some words used by the opposing side and id like to review them at first so I can name a couple of governments that have not done this.
watch this video and learn what the government has told us https://www.youtube.com...
this is the opposite of immoral while the government did not confirm this they did not do a good job hiding it there a big difference between a lie and immoral.
this ends the first part of my debate please respect my opinion and no negative comments.
Debate Round No. 1
Spilly

Pro

I would like to thank the opposition for accepting.

First I will talk about morality and moral standards:

A) Immorality is that which is the opposite of what is moral. A moral standard must be universal in order for it to be valid. For example if I say that "A is immoral" then I cannot say that A is immoral if one person does it, but moral if another person does it. This is internally inconsistent and thus is irrational. Morality can be defined as that which is "good" or "bad". Morality must also require a choice in an act. For example, if a person has an involuntary seizure which caused them to accidentally hit somebody, then they have not done something immoral since they did not make a moral decision or choice. If someone chose to hit somebody, then this act can be tested for morality since it involved a choice.
B) The second concept I will talk about is preference. Preference will be defined as a person's want or lack of want for something. In terms of morality, we can say someone has a preference for an act imposed upon them. Assuming this act was done by choice by the initiator of the act, we can evaluate this act for morality. "Good" and "Bad" do not exist in nature, but we can still rationally evaluate morality based upon the receiver of the act's preference. In other words, if there is a moral standard which everyone "preferred" we can call this "good" since it is universally preferable. Thus, anything which is not universally preferable cannot be a valid moral standard.

Conclusion: The initiaton of force always involves a party who does not prefer to have force enacted on them. If the receiver of the act did prefer it, then it would not longer be force. Force requires enacting something upon a person who does not want it. Since the initiation of force can never be universally preferable, it is not a valid moral standard and is not "good."

My argument that governments initiate the use of force has not been refuted, so I still hold this to be true. Governments (specifically the politicians that make up the government) do in fact lie. Fraud/lying at another person's expense can also be viewed as immoral since the person you committed fraud against certainly does not always prefer it.

I look forward to your refutations.
krbrimm20

Con

krbrimm20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Spilly

Pro

Spilly forfeited this round.
krbrimm20

Con

krbrimm20 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spilly 1 year ago
Spilly
@GoOrDin Did you read what I wrote about moral standards and how the invitation of force can never be a rationally ethical standard? I recommend looking up Universally Preferable Behavior by Stefan Molyneux to look at more thorough analysis of objective morality.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
1) The initiation of the use of force is immoral = FALSE

Governments are not by default Negative/Immoral in essence.
Posted by krbrimm20 1 year ago
krbrimm20
sorry i will respond later tomorrow
Posted by Spilly 1 year ago
Spilly
@Sssomone, I would gladly participate in the debate over the morality of wealth distribution.
Posted by krbrimm20 1 year ago
krbrimm20
true check out these other debates i posted for
Do you think our school system should change?
armed citizens or unarmed?
:)
Posted by Sssomeone 1 year ago
Sssomeone
I don't think the Non-Aggression Principle applies to cows Canis. Although I suppose you could debate that it does, or maybe apply the same principle but only using human actors.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Life is immoral. I can not get a burger without "some one" "using force" against a cow...That`s life. Democracy is the immoralety of the majorety.
Posted by krbrimm20 1 year ago
krbrimm20
thank you Sssomeone for your support on this debate and i hope it goes well too
Posted by Sssomeone 1 year ago
Sssomeone
This will be a very interesting debate. Missed it by 5 minutes. If Krbimm doesn't present all the arguments I would I might challenge you (Spilly) to a debate that "Wealth redistribution is moral" or somesuch. Best of luck both debaters!
Posted by Spilly 1 year ago
Spilly
@Sssomeone Since I put out an argument in my opening, the 1st round is both acceptance and refutation. This allows for more thorough refutation in the following rounds. I find it a waste of a round to simply state "I accept."
No votes have been placed for this debate.