The Instigator
Trapeeze
Pro (for)
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)

Morality: What is Ultimately Good and What's Ultimately Evil for Humans?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Trapeeze has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 544 times Debate No: 107078
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

Trapeeze

Pro

Definition of Good in this context: What benefits our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual' is a combination of mind and body.

Definition of Evil in this context: What damages our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual is a combination of mind and body.

With the definitions understood, we can move on to my opening argument.

Humans from birth till death have to make logical decisions that have good or evil consequences, but what's ultimately good (beneficent) and what's ultimately evil (damaging) for humans?

Morality is also a competition; where a human can be greater than another human, and I think this is the realm where we are to discover what's ultimately good.

Is it natural for sentient species to have the incentive to be parental to the land and animals?

Is there a proper method of sentience?

In attempt to be parental to the land and animals, it's spiritually beneficent to have enforced a Happy Animal Scheme, where animals are treated fairly in accordance to the pain they must endure on farms.

With a Happy Animal Scheme, there is no logical reason, unless a farmer is mentally or physically deteriorating, a farmer should not farm animals.

It would mean that sentience is being approached properly, but, there is a greater harmony of sentient logic and creativity; logic and creativity, not of the farmer, but of the animal itself.

An animal might naturally obey universal fundamentals rather than a Government.

Rather than farming for money, farming to support a small, village population; not for money, but as a means of survival.

Metaphorically using the tool but then not using the tool, focusing on the hand that holds it.

The sentient animal is not meant to be employed by a Government, but to employ itself at times where it is deem necessary.

Based on this idea of sentience, I think we can understand ultimate good and ultimate evil.

What's ultimately good for humans, I argue is logical and creative aptitude; what's ultimately evil is a failure of the aforementioned.

Where in the animal farming example, it's wise to employ a Happy Animal Scheme, it's also wise to employ a Clean Energy Scheme, a Controlled Population Scheme, etc.

If we are to excel and employ all the right schemes, we are being logically and creatively apt.

In a purer sense, to excel, and make all the correct decisions for what's good and what's evil.

My case then is that what's ultimately good for humans is logical and creative aptness, because it takes creative and logical aptitude to make correct decisions. and in making correct decisions, goods we commit can only become greater.
kwagga_la

Con

I accept, thanks for initiating the debate.

Pro starts off with the following: "Definition of Good in this context: What benefits our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual' is a combination of mind and body."

Perhaps Pro can clarify his comments explaining whether "ultimate" would be equated with "absolute".

To establish absolute morality is important because this is in direct opposition to the statement made: "Morality is also a competition; where a human can be greater than another human, and I think this is the realm where we are to discover what's ultimately good." If it is absolute, then it is applicable to all and not based on someone"s perception, abilities or opinion (perception and opinion also motivates decisions), it is absolute despite of opinion and perception.

If we consider the capabilities of different humans to establish ultimate morals, would that not be discrimination on the basis of ability? I would like to know whether Pro thinks that discrimination is morally wrong or not. I do not see how discrimination can be good for someone"s "mental" and spiritual" health if they have to suffer discrimination.

Pro uses the example of animals and the care humans should have as responsible people over the animals. Pro argues for the treatment of animals by mankind to be what he considers good, but I would like Pro to expand on this by answering the following questions:

1 Are humans superior to animals?
2. Are Animals and humans equal?
3. Should humans and animals have the same rights?
4. Should all the different animal species have the same rights?

Pro further states: "My case then is that what's ultimately good for humans is logical and creative aptness, because it takes creative and logical aptitude to make correct decisions. and in making correct decisions, goods we commit can only become greater."

Again, I would like Pro to answer the following questions:

1. Consider the following hypothetical proposition: Is it logical to kill 2000 people to save the lives of 1 billion people?
2. Is it logical to kill 2000 animals to save the lives of 1 billion people?
Perhaps Pro can explain these questions in order to rebut his propositions.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
It's not, because you can do it because you want to but you might annoy certain people who want other things, and if you have respect for what people want you don't rape.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
Which is my point, that, that's what it is, but you call it ultimately evil.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
I do not rape but that is because of the people who tell me not to.
Posted by kwagga_la 5 months ago
kwagga_la
@Trapeeze Yes, as expected. Anyway, avoiding the questions does not make it disappear. It also shows that your "neutral existence" theory is not neutral after all.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
i think you herp derp'd last comment @kwagga_ia
Posted by kwagga_la 5 months ago
kwagga_la
@Trapeeze Rape is not wrong? Try telling that to a rape victim. Tell them the agony and hurt of reliving the moment is foolishness because rape "isn"t wrong" but can be considered wrong. The second thing is, I specifically refer to "your mother" because it is easy to brush of things when it happens to other people but a totally different thing when it happens to you or a loved one, like your mother where you are personally involved. Forget the "broader picture" answer the specific questions where you are involved. All of the sudden it is not so easy. Why don't you tell your mother that is ok for her to be raped because in the "broader picture" it is actually not wrong. She carried you for nine months, and cared for you when you were not able too, she should knock out all your teeth if you say something like that to her.

Your logic is absolutely faulty to say that to "say rape is wrong is to ban rape from neutral existence". That is like saying a lie cannot exist. Best of all, if you are an Atheist, that type of reason refutes your atheism.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
To say rape is wrong is to ban rape from neutral existence, why not believe you ban rape from neutral existence, a less lazy view.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
Rape isn't wrong but it can be considered wrong. Morality is bigger than rape and tackles a broader spectrum that takes more complex skill to understand.
Posted by kwagga_la 5 months ago
kwagga_la
*murderer
Posted by kwagga_la 5 months ago
kwagga_la
@TheJuniorVarsityNovice If you like, we can also discuss your assertion. Can you answer the following questions so we can test you moral standpoint:

1. Is it absolutely wrong for someone to rape your mother without having any justification whatsoever to do so?

2. If the President of a country commit murder, is it absolutely wrong for him/her to do so? Or should we exempt him or her because of his/her position?

3. Is it absolutely wrong to release a murder convicted of a willful intended murder without any type of sentence being imposed.

Please answer these questions so we can see if there are no moral absolutes.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.