Moral Objectivism is superior to Moral Skepticism as a moral theory.
Debate Rounds (4)
1. Moral Skepticism:
First, the dictionary.com definition: "the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt."
Basically, for the context of this debate, I am going to argue that Skepticism is a blanket term that covers the following ideologies; nihilism (an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth), existentialism (a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created by the universe or a deity), or any such philosophies. Obviously, we deal with these philosophies only on their impact on morality (i.e. what is moral/immoral, and how we decide/determine morality).
Again, the dictionary.com version: "The position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion."
I am going to posit that moral objectivists could be atheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic; and also that their position may come from divinity, reason, or a combination of both.
Once again with dictionary.com: "1. or higher grade or quality. 2. showing a consciousness or feeling of being better than or above others."
In the context of the resolution, I define "superior" to mean, "more supported by logic, more supported by evidence, and more coherent as a system of morality."
I will refrain from presenting my contentions until the next round, giving my opponent opportunity to present any opposing or supplementary definitions.
I will wait for the GOV to give his argument
Anybody who is familiar with Ayn Rand will recognize the following argument as basically hers.
Claim 1: Existence Exists.
This claim asserts that something other than one's own consciousness exists. If it did not, consciousness itself would be an impossibility. That this principle is self-evident (its truth is given in perceptual experience) and is such that any attempt to refute it implicitly assumes it. This axiom entails metaphysical realism, the view that things are what they are independently of the mental states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual people. Objectivism rejects the view that one could, in principle, be conscious exclusively and entirely of one's own consciousness. Objectivism holds that consciousness is not possible without the prior existence of something, external to consciousness, for consciousness to be conscious of; to be aware is to be aware of something.
Claim 2: To be is to be something; a thing is what it is, and is nothing else.
Objectivism regards identity as the essence of existence: "Existence is Identity." The corollary of this is the Law of Identity, which states that everything that exists has an identity, and that whatever has an identity is existent. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific identity, or nature, which consists of its attributes and the values of those attributes.
Objectivism holds that all attributes (properties and characteristics) that constitute something's identity have specific values, so that each exists in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means specificity. Therefore, according to Objectivism, everything that exists has a specific, finite nature. Something with a specific, finite nature cannot both have and not have the same attribute; and an attribute of a something cannot both have and not have a single, specific value. Therefore, everything in reality is non-contradictory; though contradictions may be imagined in the mind, "a contradiction cannot be achieved within reality."
Claim 3: Something can exist without anything being conscious of it.
In addressing the fundamental relationship between consciousness and existence, Objectivism holds that existence takes primacy over consciousness; that existence exists independently of consciousness, and that therefore the essential function of consciousness is the grasp of existence.
In this view, consciousness is fundamentally dependent upon existence. In contrast, there is the broad position that consciousness takes primacy over existence: that existence is in some sense fundamentally dependent upon consciousness; that consciousness can be prior to existence and that it somehow creates or shapes existence. Insofar as they have a specific identity, Objectivism holds that minds, thoughts, desires, intentions and so on do exist, but only as consequences of consciousness, which cannot come into existence without the prior existence of external objects to be conscious of.
Because consciousness cannot precede existence, the universe as a whole cannot be the creation of a consciousness, nor itself be entirely mental.
Claim 4: Since existence exists, and everything that exists is itself and nothing else, and something can exist without anything being conscious of it, it follows that if "right" and "wrong" exist, they exist in a finite, concrete manner.
The logic works as follows:
1. existence exists
2. everything that exists is itself and is not anything else
3. therefore, everything that exists has, at any given moment, a finite character that can be quantified and described
4. if everything has a finite nature, then nothing can simultaneously be and not be something.
5. everything is either right, or it is wrong.
6. therefore, everything must be right or wrong.
bsufan101 forfeited this round.
robert.fischer forfeited this round.
Now you can not say that that person is not living. They do have a consciousness, they are there.
On your claim 2 you state that every body is identical to itself. Yes people do have traits however you are not totally your own. Take for example some of the religious groups out there. They are slammed with the same thing every day of there life, no real opportunity to be yourself. Also think of a child they are not themselves, they are still acting like the way there parents teach them.
And to say there are no contradictions in reality is just far fetched. Every day we see contradictions, in politics, in law, in our every day lives there are contradictions. Even dealing with other people the way I believe will contradict with the way you believe and really every person in this world you and I will contradict with all of them in some way.
And please define your meaning of Existence in claim 3.
robert.fischer forfeited this round.
Now that those things are clear let me get into this debate at hand.
Move all of my arguments through to this round. My opponent has clearly felt that he lost the debate and that is why he did not post. I asked him to define a term and he could not even notify me by message or on this debate. It is clear that my opponent had weaknesses in his argumentation, I found them and he realizes that.
This match should be given to me because of my opponent not fighting back after my speech.
Again flow all of my argument down.
The main thing is my opponent did not fight back on my argument. I did when he had posted. Meaning my opponent has forfeited this debate.
Good debate I hope to meet again.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsufan101 8 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:||0||7|
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.