The Instigator
TheRussian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Grovenshar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Life Philosophy Debate 2

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 750 times Debate No: 89798
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (0)

 

TheRussian

Con

I am in a bit of a philosophical mood and was hoping to argue something deep and thought-provoking. The two subjects currently on my mind are Free Will (I am Con) and Objective Morality (I am Con). Feel free to accept if you have a contrary opinion on either topic and would like to argue it. If you have another philosophical debate on your mind, feel free to post in the comments and I'll gladly consider something new. In fact, I'd rather debate something new as I think I've made up my mind on the two above topics.

In any case, any questions will be answered in the comments.

My opponent will have Sole BoP if he/she chooses the Free Will topic, but BoP will be shared if he/she chooses to argue Pro Objective Morality.

Upon accepting, I ask that my opponent state which topic they chose and present their arguments in the first Round.
Grovenshar

Pro

I will be taking the topic of Objective Morality.

For the purpose of this discussion, Objective Morality will be defined as follows: the concept that in any given situation there is always one path that is universally moral for any and all people.

So, before we can discuss Objective Morality, we must first clarify Morality. Morality is not something that can ever change. Should Morality change, than something that was Moral previously ceases to be Moral in the present. Given that the past makes the present, and the present than creates the future, all time is, at some point, essentially the same. Because of this, if Morality changes, than Morality will cease to be real because it is paradoxical due to it's difference between times, which, as mentioned before, are all the same.

So, after that, we can conclude that Morality is unchangeable. Therefore, there is one universal Moral code. Whether or not humanity knows what it is is decidedly debatable. However, because there is one universal Moral code, we can deduce that in any given situation, Objectively speaking, there is always a decision to be made that leads to multiple choices, one more Moral than the rest.

Ergo, Objective Morality does exist, we just have applied subjective reasoning to a non subjective topic.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRussian

Con

"Morality is not something that can ever change. "
My opponent makes this claim, but inadequately supports it. He tries to support it with his "all time is, at some point, essentially the same" argument, but just as many other things change throughout time, I don't see why morality can't change. Even if it doesn't, there are different moral codes in different societies that come about as a result of different cultures. Even if those moral codes don't change, they're still different from one another.

My opponent speaks of morality as if it's some law that exists separately from us and is waiting to be discovered. Morality, in our sense, has not been at all shown to exist outside the realm of civilization. Therefore, it seems to be a product of civilization, a product of our minds.

"However, because there is one universal Moral code, we can deduce that in any given situation, Objectively speaking, there is always a decision to be made that leads to multiple choices, one more Moral than the rest."
I don't understand how my opponent can make this claim. What is more "moral" depends solely on the personal values of the individual making the decision. There can't possibly be one single correct answer for any situation because people have different values and what is right to them depends on what they value. Putting two different people in the exact same situation would possibly result in two different responses based on the individual value of the people.

Morality is purely subjective, what I find immoral another person might find completely acceptable and there's no way you can say that I am objectively wrong because if I find an action to be immoral then...there's no way around that.
Grovenshar

Pro

Let me start with this: morality can't be different between two people. If I say that murder is wrong, but you say that murder is right, both objectively and subjectively speaking, we can't both be right. Therefore, morality either doesn't exist, or it is a universal constant. There is no in between. Seeing as morality clearly exists, we must agree with the latter of the two options.

As for morality being a product of civilization given that it has not been at all shown to exist outside the realm of civilization, we must note that this doesn't necessitate it coming from civilization. All it necessitates is that we realize that civilization is the one place, observable by humans, that contains morality. To conclude anything else requires additional proof.

You are correct that two different people in the same situation will respond differently. This merely demonstrates that people are different. As has been mentioned previously, moral egoism isn't a sufficient provider of morality. Moral egoism only provides an excuse for people to not act morally.

GIven all of this, we must conclude that there is a universal moral code. Because of this, there is a universal path to be taken in any given situation.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRussian

Con

We seem to disagree on what exactly morality is. If I am to use your logic in the first paragraph of your previous argument, then I'd like to ask you to prove your claim that "Seeing as morality clearly exists".

Morality does NOT exist as a universal code, and my opponent has provided no evidence to support this claim.

I agree with my opponent's second paragraph, however I'd like to present evidence that morality does indeed come from civilization. We clearly see moral codes as early as Hammurabi's code heavily influencing our laws and moral compasses today. These codes (as well as others, shown in religious texts) are of human origin (as they haven't been shown to have heavenly origin) and are a product of our own minds.

"Given all of this, we must conclude that there is a universal moral code."
But my opponent hasn't provided evidence of a universal moral code. He provided a strange proof in the opening round to show that morals don't change, even though they clearly do as we can see throughout human history. He may now say that it's because we haven't found the "universal code" but I could apply his same logic of "past makes present, present makes future, so all are essentially the same" to our human codes of ethics, but this would clearly be wrong as we can see quite drastic changes in human behavior concerning what's moral and what isn't as time goes on.

My opponent has yet to prove that morals exist as he imagines them.

What we DO see, however, is that different people in different cultures have different views on what's right and what's wrong, and there's no way you can prove any of them to be objectively wrong.
Grovenshar

Pro

I didn't want to bring this debate into the level of physics, but I fear, for the purposes of demonstrating a universal moral code, I must bring up the concept of heat death. As of right now, there are three major theories as to how the world came to be. Theory 1, God, or gods, created the earth in it's present form roughly 4,000 to 6,000 years ago. Theory 2, God, or gods, kickstarted the universe via the big bang theory. Theory 3, the universe came into existence out of the big bang without the presence of a God or gods.

2/3 theories involve a God, or gods, that provide a constant for morality. However, this debate doesn't need to focus on statistics. Instead, it needs to focus on disproving theory 3.

To begin with, we have to establish where the matter in the big bang came from. Seeing as this theory excludes a God/gods, it had to come into existence out of nowhere, or it had to always be around for an infinite amount of time. Seeing is the former, everything just appearing out of nothing (nothing... nothing... POOF... everything), is impossible, the only possible alternative is the latter. Given that all of the stuff in the universe is an infinite amount of time old, we must conclude that it has followed through with the second law of thermodynamics, which, paraphrased, is this: over time, energy converts into less useful energy.

Now, the universe, in it's present form, has a certain level of useful energy that allows it to function. Over an infinite period of years, the universe will have energy that is infinitely less useful than the energy in the universe today. Ergo, the state in which we leave is finite and unsustainable. Given this, how did the big bang get enough useful energy to create the universe if, before the big bang, there was an infinite amount of time for energy to become infinitely useless. The simple answer is that the universe didn't. It is contrary to a scientific law, one of the only things that is guaranteed fact. Therefore, theory 3 is untenable and must be discarded.

Now that we have that established, we know that a being or group of beings beyond the universe has to exist. They are the very definition of infinity, and must be concluded as the only truly universal constant. Because of this, and the fact that there is evidence indicating contact with a being or beings involving the subject of morality, we must conclude that there is morality as I have defined it. Seeing as this was the only argument that you had against my case, I must say that all my previous words hold true.
Debate Round No. 3
TheRussian

Con

I'd like to attack my opponent's arguments in the last Round as a whole.

First of all, since space and time are contingent, there was no "before" the big bang. Time didn't exist infinitely, it didn't exist at all. Therefore part of my opponent's argument doesn't really make sense (about 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

Secondly, my opponent assumes that "God" (the supernatural thing that created the universe) is a conscious being. Why can't it just be a force, without conscious? Just as here on Earth we have forces/phenomena with no consciousness that create things, why must this out-of-the-universe force be conscious?

Thirdly, even IF the outside force IS conscious (which my opponent has no way of proving), I don't see how this proves a universal morality. If it is conscious, I would assume it has a mind of great power and would understand the differences between humans and not judge them all by the same moral scale, as we are all totally different in that sense.

Fourthly, my opponent brings up that the universe can't come from nothing so something must have created it, but then why don't we ask the very simple, but logical question: What made whatever made the universe? What made God? And of course my opponent would want to pull a classic cop out like "He's outside our realm of existence where there is no time, and we don't understand how things work there etc." something like that, but that's a cop out, nothing more. There is no need for a God to have created the universe because that just pushes the issue one step back and we must ask ourselves what created God?

And so, considering the above points in reference to my opponent's argument, I think we can conclude that:
1) Having a God doesn't solve the problem of "Where did all of this come from?" because then the question is "Where did God come from?"
2) Assuming a God exists, I don't see a way my opponent could prove that this God has a consciousness and is not merely a natural "force"
3) Assuming a conscious God exists, it seems logical that he wouldn't hold all of us to a single moral code, considering that he hasn't shown this code to everyone on the planet (arguably nobody at all), and that would simply be unfair and I assume an all-powerful being would be better than that.

In conclusion of this exchange, I'd like to say that I'm still largely unconvinced. If anything, more convinced of my own position.

As mentioned before, there's no way anyone could tell me an action of mine is objectively wrong (or right).

I await my opponent's move.
Grovenshar

Pro

Grovenshar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheRussian

Con

Bit of a shame there to forfeit that one, hopefully you can have your final word in the last round.

Thank you for the interesting debate!
Grovenshar

Pro

Sorry about the forfeit. I was doing PARCC testing in addition to a load of homework that I hadn't had time to do previously. I am truly sorry. However, with that out of the way, let me begin.

1.
My opponent assumes that the time and space thing don't matter. Everything had to have come into existence right at the big bang. I maintain my position that this is impossible. For everything to do that, physics would have to invent themselves from some position. From nothing comes nothing. This is basic logic. However, I will take the win that my opponent assumes that everything had to come into existence at once. This can only be caused by a God, or gods.

2.
Why can't it be a force without conscious? It can't because that force would have to be infinite. If it were infinite, it would contain consciousness in there somewhere.

3.
If it has a mind of great power, it knows what is truly moral at every point in time. Therefore, the being is, in it of itself, the universal moral code. (I'm sorry that this is coming into semantics).

4.
The universe we live in is finite. The only thing that could have made it would have to be infinite. An infinite being doesn't need to be created. An infinite being is both the beginning and the end.

However, if that explanation is not enough, let me put it this way. The point is irrelevant. Regardless of how much speculation as to the nature of the being, the being clearly exists. To question its cause is like questioning one's own existence. It can't be done rationally.

Sidenote:
My opponent brought up that an infinite being would have to show us a universal moral code, otherwise, this infinite being can't exist. I would object to the presupposition that the being hasn't shown us this universal moral code. It most definitely has. I would point to the Bible as an example of such a code. It takes into account the basics, such as the ten commandments, and it also takes into account individual choices in the letters of Paul.

Final Conclusion:
There is a moral code. It is universal. Though people react differently, they are still judged by the same standard.
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
"The moral code is opposite of wrong"
- Vi_Spex

But then you state Wrong can be right at any time. So are you stating that Moral code is the opposite of what is right as well? In fact it would be stating that it is the opposite of both which logically isnt possible, but maybe it is something else? Maybe Moral Code isnt about whats right or wrong, it just is? Neutral? Truth?
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
"The moral code is opposite of wrong"
- Vi_Spex

But then you state Wrong can be right at any time. So are you stating that Moral code is the opposite of what is right as well? In fact it would be stating that it is the opposite of both which logically isnt possible, but maybe it is something else? Maybe Moral Code isnt about whats right or wrong, it just is? Neutral? Truth?
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
But the "rightous" moral code is more common.

The rightous grass outnumber the weeds in the war of the garden that is reality.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
in any case

a wrong can be a right at the right time
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
wrong
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 1 year ago
The-Holy-Macrel
Usually.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
the moral code is the opposite of wrong
Posted by Grovenshar 1 year ago
Grovenshar
If, by objective morality, you mean that in any given situation, there is always a path to go down that is objectively the most moral, than I would love to debate this with you.
Posted by TheRussian 1 year ago
TheRussian
@Boatlet "majority of people" that means that some would act differently, therefore it's not objective. I would be interested in debating this with you, but would like for you to very clearly define your position before we begin. What exactly would you be arguing for? What exactly would I be arguing against?
Posted by Boatlet 1 year ago
Boatlet
I don't believe in truly objective morals. I do believe in contextual objective morals. That if the majority people were put in a specific situation that they would act in a similar way. The issue with this type of model is the situation has to be defined before you can start analyzing it. I want to test this method versus opposition. I'm not sure if it's something you would like to debate about.
No votes have been placed for this debate.