Is morality a tool for suppressing instinct?
Debate Rounds (3)
Instinct has been around for much longer, and is the strongest unconscious motive any animal can have. So to me morality means preventing instinct. Personally I feel much of this defined morality has, like much of todays society, come from the church, or religion.
An example could be for mans instinct to populate with more than one person, or persons. This still goes on in other countries, so why has it been ruled out in the west?
There are many others, but I rather not list them all, as I will simply not have enough room and will have to miss important ones out. But we all have instincts that drive us, so however is frown upon, or illegal. But why, who benefits and who loses, and is much of life, and our understanding of it, tied to an old establishment which is no longer relevant today?
My Thesis: Morality is humans' truest unachievable instinct, and all else is a broken instinct
Short and sweet: Common Instinct can suppress Morality
My reasons will be given in round two.
But as morality came after basic instinct, the establishment, for whatever reason, decided instinct was not for the good of the society they had in mind.
Again this is why society is one sided, as the rules of life's core has been created by the few, really few, where it should be written by the many.
1. "Instinct has been around for much longer, and is the strongest unconscious motive any animal can have. So to me morality means preventing instinct." Are you suggesting that humans are mere animals? Are you also suggesting that animals do not have morals? What is your evidence that instinct has been around for longer than morality? (http://www.scienceofidentityfoundation.net...) (http://www.livescience.com...) (http://www.infidels.org...)
2. "But as morality came after basic instinct, the establishment, for whatever reason, decided instinct was not for the good of the society they had in mind." Again, what is your proof that morality came before instinct?(http://countmazz.wordpress.com...)
Morality cannot suppress instinct as a whole, but only those parts which must be suppressed at certain times. In this sense my opponent has a point. However, this is in reality a more beneficial instinct. If instinct is defined as, "an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli" then morality is simply the best and truest ideal instinct. It is when we ignore morality and simply indulge our instinct that true chaos takes place.
The reasons a society must have morality;
1. The instinct of violence (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
2. The strive to always be the best at everything (http://www.goodreads.com...)
3. Instinct neglects the counter intuitive (http://www.spring.org.uk...)
There would be no such thing as a functional society apart from some sense of morality. (http://www.psychologytoday.com...)
A perfect world would be completely filled with moral people, not those who followed their instinct. We must suppress certain instincts sometimes because they are immoral, our method for suppressing is not morality itself.
ProfessorAddy forfeited this round.
Pro did not have any support for his thesis.
Morality may demand for us to suppress CERTAIN instincts, but only those we wish we did not have. Therefore, morality is the goal whenever we suppress instinct, not the tool. I am sorry that my opponent did not reply, but I would encourage the voters to look at Pro's arguments and realize their weakness.
More sources for fun
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 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:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con. Pro forfeited R3. SP/G: Tied. Arguments: Pro. BOTH sides argued that morality is a tool for suppressing instinct, Con conceding it in both R2 & R3. Pro did not have well-expressed arguments, but they were sufficient with this opponent. Sources: Tied. Pro used no sources, and Con used a variety of bad or irrelevant sources.
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.