Debate Rounds (2)
I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information based on reason and logic.
I will create a logic step attempting to prove the objectivity of morality.
I have been searching for truth my entire life. I guess I'm just a kid trying to find his way in the world. I have always been trying to find the answer to "When should we act on what we know and don't know?" This is a question in which the answer implies why we do things, in addition to what we should and should not do. Much of my argument will be based on inductive reasoning.
Humanity will become extinct, whether it's tomorrow or the at end of time. Wouldn't an ultimate goal of anyone who is logical be to push that specific point of time into the future as much as possible?
The Objectivity of Morality:
What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do.
"The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy
It is right to follow the sole meaning of life.
The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence.
Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive.
Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct.
You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity.
I would also put forth the laws of causality. Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event.
Isn't the right thing to do for every logical person is to try not to come to that point in time? This conceptual thinking solidifies the purpose of any educational institution. This does not imply, however, that every educational institution is conducive to maintaining humanity's survival.
I assure you there is much further discussion needed for this topic. Please understand that you should probably not debate if you can't suppress your ego. Hopefully, your ego would allow the possibility that Man hasn't discovered this until now, thus implying that the reason why this was discovered, in accordance to causality, was all the knowledge that humanity has learned so far has finally made this result. I also need full credit, regardless of how inelegant I am. I do need help creating a passable argument in which the world can accept.
1. If you objectify anything, then it is objective. If it is not objective, then it was not objectified. You can attempt to objectify a person by their looks, however, if the reason why is subjective, then you have in fact given your opinion. The only way you can truly objectify a person by their looks is to give a reason in regards to body features in relation to one another based on the Golden Ratio.
2. Wouldn't an ultimate certain credential for doing good be that humanity should continue to exist?
3. As I said in my first argument, EVERY action that we take from this moment on would ultimately lead to the continued existence of humanity or end it. I'm pretty sure this is the butterfly effect. To use, will a person taking the cookie be conducive to ending humanity or not? That can't be answered entirely, however, if we turn this around and ask how will humanity end, then we can ask how does that happen? Then we can ask how that previous happening happened and continue that chain of events to the point when he stole the cookie. Since that implies an arbitrarily high number questions, the most efficient way of making it to the end is lumping them all together creating a variable in which you can use in an equation to define morality.
4. Objectification is the process of making every question into true or false, yes or no, or like a how a computer operates, zeros and ones.
5. When does "being right/correct" become invalidated? This logic has determined that it's invalidated when there is no one left to answer it.
6. We have been dependent for so long for religion to answer our moral questions. Religion is a necessary institution for humanity, for it gives a shortcut explanation of why we do things. In my opinion, any religion that leads to the end of humanity is wrong. I argue that since "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son," John 3:16, why would he tell anyone to end it? Even though I cannot say for certain other religions realize the same thing about their deities, I'm assuming that since most people aren't trying to kill each other is because they are aware that forming groups with a common ideology will help fortify institutions thus helping humanity continue to exist. The fact of the matter is that this hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to religion. One can even begin to say that killing in the name of God is wrong. Also keep in mind that there can be groups or individuals within the religion that may share a difference of opinion with the mass majority of the population of said religion.
7. If one man said the Earth is round and presented evidence as such, but millions of people said it was flat with their own rationale, which side would be morally correct and which should be morally correct?
8. This theorem(yes it needs work) can be implemented in forming a government that can respect everyone's belief if that belief is contingent on furthering the existence of Mankind. It is right to follow the laws government has instituted based on the argument the keeping peace can lead to a healthy exchange of ideas which can be proven to be conducive to Humanity's continued survival.
Every action we make boils down to happiness. We go to college because we want a good job, to earn lots of money, to buy lots of stuff, to help us survive, and all this eventually boils down because we want happy things and avoid unhappy things. If some stranger in Africa is happy this has no effect on you whatsoever, but making your spouse happy can make life great for you. So you should try to act in your self-interest and help others when it benefits your self-interest.
Happiness doesn't have to be about food, drink, money, and sex but also can be about a feeling of purpose, the joy of helping someone, the happiness of relationships and friendships, and the peace of avoiding those negative emotions. We can weight different actions by how much they will bring you happiness, real happiness.
For example, giving a stranger 1 million dollars may give you some joy of helping someone but will have major financial ramifications for you. While it can be beneficial for you to cheat everyone you know, you will get a bad reputations and you will end up alone, friendless, and unemployed. Being charming and generous to a reasonable extent can result in amazing friendships and great career connections. If you had the chance to steal 10 million and never get caught this is extremely beneficial and outweighs the guilt.
But all this boils down to caring about our self-interest and therefore objective morals like not stealing, not lying, or being charitable should only be used in cases where they are beneficial to us. So morality doesn't make any sense, only self-interest does and right and wrong are subjective.
Sidex argues that we should take actions that will prolong humanity's survival. But the day to day actions of most of us has no proven effect on when humanity ends. I am one out of 6 billion people and there is no evidence that any of my actions are going to significantly change when the world will end.
Also the end of the world is projected to be in the distant future long after everyone I know and love are long decayed into dirt. Since I will not be impacted, preventing the end of the world is not in my self-interest and there is no logical reason to work to prevent it. Nuclear war and a super-virus could happen in my lifetime but it is unlikely that anything I do will start or prevent any of these things in my life-time and I can just avoid anything that causes them. But it all boils down to self-interest again.
Thank you very much for accepting this debate. Wow, I really like you, dude. I want you to know that I really don't want to do this, but unfortunately saving the world means I have to do this.
Your argument is well-reasoned and for most of my life that is pretty much what I thought as well.
1. This is the sociopath's/narcissistic's argument. Not all narcissists are sociopaths, but they also can't feel empathy. Yes, sociopaths will always look out for themselves first. They cannot care, they can act like they care, but they can't actually feel like normal people can. The one thing that most people tend to want is the best for their children. This goes across all nations. The only people in the world that don't care for their legacy are sociopaths. The fact of the matter is a normal person loves their children unconditionally. Now follow my chain of events if. If you want your children to be happy, wouldn't it be wonderful to make sure they can live in this world? And what about their children? And their children? When should we say that that is enough for our legacy? If the answer is, "I would like to keep furthering my legacy", then wouldn't it be appropriate to try to make your lives about making that happen? Your legacy ends at extinction. This theorem gives the right to say that is wrong.
2. Now since most people are religious, that would indicate that they believe in one after-life or another. If you believe in the after-life, then what does it matter what you do here on Earth(apart from any actions you believe you need to take for it)? But if your religion says you should be kind and help others, then why shouldn't we do it? (With this theorem, the only time you shouldn't help would be if it leads to the extinction of humanity, however, kindness leads to fortified groups which in turn supports new ideas which can lead to preventing extinction which is why we should do it.)
3. I would argue that the greatest happiness one could feel is from the relationships they form with others(for normal people). If you help others and share a similar ideology (perhaps an objective morality?) then you form a relationship alongside with a sense of belonging(again, for normal people). Because of globalization, we can finally treat everyone around the world equally. We can care now for that happy stranger in Africa.
4. Since your argument is actually about the point of morality instead of arguing the objectivity of it, I will argue why we should have morality. However, regardless of what I say, the truth still remains. The truth being a sociopath always has the choice to follow this theorem or not. This theorem also implies that most people are already following it naturally. If you don't want to be moral, then you don't have to be. You nailed it when you implied that you just have to follow the laws that you won't get caught. But anyone who is moral wouldn't steal to just to benefit them. Also, moral people make their spouse's happy because they actually care for them. They are happy to serve them. Sociopaths can't understand that. They can only see that they can make their spouse happy so the spouse would be less annoying.
5. I never said significantly change, but you just implied that it does change it somehow in a very small way, which is what I was implying. So thanks for agreeing with me on that. The evidence that it changes is the laws of causality by how I have already explained. We can change our behavior or actions to further the progression of humanity. We do that by setting up institutions that inherently promotes peace(such as schools) because philosophy has already determined that peaceful discussions bring more constructive ideas.
6. ".....most of us has no proven effect....." Do you think the people who do have a significant change of when the world would end should care? If yes, then why should they care about the rest humanity if you won't care even little? If not, then why should the rest of the world who may not want to die be ok with them not caring like you are? This is for the world, not for you. This theorem implies that sociopaths are immoral because of your argument. This is an important perspective to see. There are people in this world who have a choice to be moral or not. They can identify what right and wrong are then choose wrong.
7. A moral person that steals $10 million would have a justification, thus not feeling guilty. A sociopath wouldn't have any guilt anyway. Since there would be no guilt, what is the difference between the two? Justification, which is based on morality. The morality of why we do things is what separates us from the people whose reason is pure absolute greed and selfishness.
8. If you really loved someone, then why wouldn't care about their legacy as well? I'm sorry, but if you don't care about your legacy ending, then I believe you can't ever know what love truly is. Say we have come to the point in time when humanity ends. You have a great great great etc. grandchild dealing with the end of the world. I assume that nearing the end, life would really suck. What if you started to take actions today to move that point in time further? Would those actions of yours be worth it for that grandchild to have the opportunity to a child of their own since there was more time given? Is it right to love so much to give them the gift of time so they can experience the greatest aspects of life? I suppose it all depends on how much you love life yourself. If you are truly happy, would it be worth it to make another descendant have the opportunity of feeling it his/herself?
Last but not least you also have touched an important aspect I have not yet addressed for this theorem as well. Basically, it's what is the most likely scenario/s to cause humanity's extinction. I'm not quite ready to answer that, but it is the first question if you accept this theory. I think that if we had a consensus of those scenarios, then we should do everything to prevent it. I would also argue that the people at the end of humanity wouldn't want to die. If you had lived at the end, would still not care. If you claimed self-interest, then why wouldn't you be upset at the past for not trying harder to save your life? I'm upset the dark ages happened for humanity. When should we become the bigger man? You have made the choice not to care, what about those who want to care?
Good luck and thank you very much for accepting the debate. Anyone not a sociopath has to be moral(does not imply one has the right morality). Including non-sociopathic atheists. This is the perfect moral guide for them. Anyone who is moral is interested in all of these questions. What people should understand about this theorem is it's a moral cap. No one can be more moral than this in any religion. Thus all religions can exist peacefully under this moral guide.
So balance needs to be maintained allowing yourself to be emotionally fulfilled by helping others and having friendships and family but also make sure that you are not giving away too much and that you also live life for yourself as well. A psychopath doesn't get emotional satisfaction from helping others and thinks differently about this than I do.
While you can give some great arguments for acting morally like having strong and satisfying friendships it all boils down to improving your well-being and if a choice to help someone else absolutely doesn't help you socially in any way you can't provide a logical reason for doing it anymore.
Unlike you I don't consider legacy to be an absolute goal since it is one out of many things that affect your well-being and other factors need to be considered. Over-prioritizing legacy will result in other more personal needs not getting enough attention.
Now lets talk about the end of the world. You can't show that any choice most of us will have will even affect the end of the world. While peaceful institutions make humanity smaller the actions of one person has a tiny effect on the total peacefulness of humanity and your personal actions are unlikely to get humans to the stars or prevent a nuclear holocaust. But even if my actions have a tiny impact on the end of the world should I sacrifice my whole life for a tiny difference for everyone long after I die?
Sometimes good actions can do terrible things. For example, if you help someone get a chemistry degree, maybe he goes on to accidentally make that super-virus. Or by not being mean to someone you don't give him the motivation to try hard and make an amazing life and invent the frst starship. The results of our actions are so unpredictable and can move things either way.
Maybe we should accept the humbling reality that we are a tiny drop in the ocean of humanity and most likely will have very little impact on history. We will be forgotten, life will go on as it always does. But for the tiny moment we are here we should make the happiest lives for ourselves we can through helping others, having friends, being successful, and having fun.
Thanks for the debate and I hope I have given you some interesting ideas for your life philosophy.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.