The Instigator
Hayd
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
Forever23
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Humans Should Discontinue Space Travel in order to Prevent Harm to Extraterrestrials

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 959 times Debate No: 83329
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

Hayd

Pro

Thank you in advance Forever23 for accepting this debate. This debate assumes that extraterrestrial beings exist, and merely have yet to be discovered.

Full Resolution

Humans Should Discontinue Space Exploration in order to Prevent Harming Extraterrestrial Life

Definitions

Extraterrestrial life-any living organism that originated outside the planet Earth.
Space Exploration-Sending voyages (manned space-craft) outside of Earth. (Does not include satellites, telescopes, etc.)
Harm-cause something unfavorable upon another.

Rules

BoP is shared.
No new arguments in the final round.
All citations should be shown within the debate (Footnotes preferred)
Be civil and respectful.

Round Structure

R1 Acceptance
R2 Present Case
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defend Arguments

Look forward to a good debate!
Forever23

Con

I Accept and I look for forward to a wonderful debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Hayd

Pro

Preface
Since this is such a specific resolution that hasn’t been done before, there are not many arguments I will be bringing up. I am arguing that humans should discontinue exploring space in order to prevent harming alien life. Since this is a normative topic, both sides share the BoP. In order to win, I have to convince the judges that we should discontinue space exploration in order to prevent harm to extraterrestrials, in spite of Con’s reasons against this notion.

I would also like to note that this is a debate on the present. This means that Con and I are arguing in modern day. Therefore any arguments that bring up future technology, advances, programs, etc. have no impact for they do not exist in the modern day.

My opponent has politely expressed the wish for this to be an ethical debate, and therefore of the topic of philosophy. My following arguments will therefore be ethical based.

Harm Principle
Governments are inherently utilitarian: they exist to maximize benefit and minimize harm. Anything a government does in order to achieve this cause (in our case a governmental program) is justified unless it causes suffering. This concept is represented by the “harm principle”.

If a government makes a law or program that in any way causes harm to any living entity, it has violated the harm principle and become unjust in that program or law.

All space entities (with the exclusion of SpaceX, but this is irrelevant because they do not explore space yet, merely deliver supplies) are government programs. For the reason that space exploration has the potential to cause harm to extraterrestrial creatures, space exploration is unjust (because of harm principle) and should be discontinued.

Ethical Justification
If we find alien life, what will happen then? Will we attempt to communicate? Will we take them against their will and study them? Two completely different worlds are coming together to understand one another. The chance that the extraterrestrial party will be put into a position that they do not want to be in is a reasonable expectation.

Humans have no moral justification on which to potentially cause harm to an unwilling party. To win the debate, Con needs to provide an objective justification that makes harming an alien organism morally permissible in order to win this debate.

The Argument from Marginal Cases
In this argument, marginal refers to to the marginal cases of humanity, such as human infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, etc.

1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no extraterrestrials deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) extraterrestrials would have as well.

4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status. [1]

5) Humans have equal moral status to extraterrestrials.

6) Any harm to extraterrestrials would have no moral justification.

7) Humans should discontinue space exploration to prevent harming extraterrestrials (and thus becoming morally corrupt).

This entire argument assumes that extraterrestrial beings would be sentient. So I will run this argument to prove such.
1) In order to be sentient, an organism has to have the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. (Definition)

2) If an organism is to be considered alive, it has to hold these characteristics: respond to their environment, adapt to their environment (among other classifications, but those are irrelevant to the argument).

3) In order to respond or adapt to the environment, a living thing must have the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
Therefore, all living things are sentient.

Conclusion
I have proven that space exploration is not morally permissible and therefore unjustified through the Harm Principle and The Argument from Marginal Cases. I look forward to seeing what arguments Con brings up and look forward to the rest of the debate. Thank you!

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Forever23

Con

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Hayd

Pro

Extend...
Forever23

Con

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Forever23

Con

Forever23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Godgirl 1 year ago
Godgirl
WARNING THIS COMMENT CONTAINS SPOILERS ABOUT THE BOOK CINDER!!
@ daemontte,
If we set up civilizations on the moon, then the people on the moon will gradually evolve to be able to control people's minds. Then all the Lunars (people who live on the moon) will become a vain and power hungry people, so much that they attempt to kill 3 year old princesses so that they can become Queen. Only the princess doesn't die and is brought to Earth and becomes a cyborg because her arm and leg got burned off during the whole attempted murder thing. Then they put this lock thing on her spinal cord so that she can't use her Lunar mind powers and she won't go crazy from not using them like she normally would because that's just a side effect of not using the gift. She'll wake up when she's 11 and be adopted and become a mechanic. She will think her name is Cinder and not Princess Seline. Then, when she is fixing the prince's Android, she discovers that Levana wants to kill the prince.And then Queen Levana( the Lunar queen), who is trying to invade Earth, will discover that Cinder is Princess Seline, even though Cinder doesn't know yet. Then Cinder will be arrested and Dr. Erland will visit her in jail a and tell her that she is Princess Seline. Then she'll escape and save the world. At least, that's what'll happen according to the sci fi dystopian novel Cinder.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Only needed one vote...didn't know people cared about getting their vote stats up so high..
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Btw accept my friend request, I need to PM you.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
@uswinseverytime
You are a human. You are part of humanity. Only caring about humanity is selfish. You assume that advancement of knowledge is the sole objective of humanity. What's wrong with me is that I am concerned in maintaining the moral integrity of the human race and making the right decisions.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
@dankmemes

I wasn't serious.
Posted by DankMemes2015 1 year ago
DankMemes2015
@hayd You are calling others insensitive when you just suggested mass executions. Think about that
Posted by usawinseverytime 1 year ago
usawinseverytime
I'm not caring about just myself. That was a really weird thing to say. Why? Because I can't afford space travel and will never space travel in my life so clearly I cannot be talking about myself. If you could read, I talked about the advancement of humanity. Not the advancement of me, but the advancement of the human race. And who am I being insensitive to? You? Extraterrestrials? Did I hurt your feelings by saying we should explore space? If so I would advise you go see a therapist immediately because you are the very definition of a complete pansie. If I'm being insensitive toward extraterrestrials, I would say that you can't speak for extraterrestrials. In fact, doing so is kind of insensitive toward them. People like you is why I am losing faith in humanity. What's wrong with you buddy?
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Good for you pal. But your pathetic and insensitive idiotic ramblings are not welcome here. Take your_shit elsewhere. I can't believe someone would be so insensitive and only care about themselves. It is people like this when I start losing faith in humanity
Posted by usawinseverytime 1 year ago
usawinseverytime
Jesus, we are even pansies outside of plant earth? Harming extraterrestrials? Are you kidding me? What if a private company wanted to space travel, assuming they have the resources to do so. Who's going to stop them? What country or world government has the authority to control migration out of planet earth? Let's not travel space and advance the human race due to the fact we are afraid of hurting things that do not exist in our own solar system? Nah fam, I'm pro humanity and no other organism, whether it's on earth or outside our planet can ever take precedent over humans.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Population control. Mass executions, etc.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by TheResistance 1 year ago
TheResistance
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by kingkd 1 year ago
kingkd
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Vane01 1 year ago
Vane01
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Complete FF by con
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Only Pro made an argument, so he wins by default.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Complete FF on con's part.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
HaydForever23
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I guess con couldn't find any good articles to plagiarize so she had to forfeit. The forfeits, still merit a loss.