The Instigator
Schopenhauer
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Ingsoc
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Morality has little meaning without force of will and power to enforce it.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Schopenhauer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 633 times Debate No: 44215
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Schopenhauer

Pro

As the title says. First round is for acceptance, evidence is optional but if used needs citation. No trolling, personal insults are not allowed, but cursing itself is acceptable.
Ingsoc

Con

I accept your terms
Debate Round No. 1
Schopenhauer

Pro

Morality does mean next to nothing without enforcing it. We know this because of the fact that those who do not enforce and protect what they believe to be morals are crushed by natural selection and their inability to defend themselves. While, if one protects and defends what they hold to be morality then one many survive, and what they regard to be morality will survive and be passed on. How can someone decide what morality is without giving a reason to why it has any meaning in the first place. If one uses power to enforce it, then this power used will prove to the world and nature the force and power of those morals. Morals have no guarantee of actually meaning anything, it is is my opinion that in fact the only way we can grant them to smallest shred of meaning is by learning to defend them and fight for them. Now I will outline the reasons morals have little meaning in the first place.
1. Morals are fabricated- Morals are created by people, and are given value by people. The only way morals can have any meaning beside that given by people is by the fires of conflict.
2. Morals can be trivial- Morals often prevent people from inflicting wound upon their fellow man and preventing a species to prosper, but by the same reasoning morals also can inhibit progress and put chains on people to weak to think for themselves.
3. Morals prevent greater people from taking charge- Morals cause people with a grander idea and greater capacity for understanding to take charge. Morals often put shackles on those regarded as lower on the societal scale and make people and their progress stagnant.
Because of the inability of the human mind to know for a fact that their morals are absolute and pure, they must go through a process very similar to the process of nature when species with certain qualities prosper and survive. Without this process morals cannot be known to be true, and if they were assumed to be true and this process was not allowed to occur then morals themselves would have lost all value and once more join the sea of endless, meaningless abstract ideals.
If we as a species go through this same fire of cleansing and weeding out of what is right or wrong then we to can prosper, and that which we regard as morals may evolve and adapt to the times as it should, simply because of the fact that their are no moral absolutes
Thank you for your time and I wish you the best of luck.
Ingsoc

Con

Morality is an ultimate authority determined by a greater being, or "god". Without having an objective view of morality our own principles will decay and we will be left with a meaningless piece of life, where morality is constantly changing and is in constant turmoil. Pro must have a very sick mind to believe that morality is a force determined by "nature". Because nature was created by God the ultimate moral authority is God. I will cite Aquinas for the existence of God, because without God something like the big bang would not be able to occur in the first place. Only with an all powerful being can something as beautiful like earth that can sustain life be created. Because of the existence of God there is no need for having a force of will and ambition and power to prove that your morality is correct, an omniscient omnipotent, and constantly present being already exists to have a spring board for what is right and wrong. without this all humans would de generate into savages like you who have no morality and believe they may do whatever they please. God influences us all and our morality, and I will close on that note.
Debate Round No. 2
Schopenhauer

Pro

Thank you for your response Ingsoc, I will get straight to rebuttals
"Without having an objective view of morality our own principles will decay and we will be left with a meaningless piece of life, where morality is constantly changing and is in constant turmoil. "
What is wrong with a changing morality? Since morality is meaningless anyway their is no point in having it change with the times and seeing whether or not the ideas it represents will "survive" if you will through time.
"Pro must have a very sick mind to believe that morality is a force determined by "nature". "
Not nature necessarily, rather a survival of the fittest system found in nature applied to societal terms.
"I will cite Aquinas for the existence of God, because without God something like the big bang would not be able to occur in the first place"
Then who created God? What created that? This is circular logic, as you must keep on going forever.
"Only with an all powerful being can something as beautiful like earth that can sustain life be created."
Are parasites, viruses, and hideous alien looking abberant bacteria that beautiful to you? In a strange way they are beautiful to me, but not in the way of human terms of beauty. Besides, if we lived in a universe created for us to survive and thrive, but we had a different need, and our universe fulfilled this need, we would be using the same argument as you are.
"an omniscient omnipotent, and constantly present being already exists to have a spring board for what is right and wrong."
You still have to actually prove this beings existence.
Thsnk you for this debate once more.
Ingsoc

Con

Ingsoc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
SchopenhauerIngsocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided strong arguments. Con went off topic and forfeited a round.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
SchopenhauerIngsocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeit easily gives Pro the round, though he didn't appear to need it, as Con makes some very eclectic and non-topical argumentation when he has the opportunity. In fact, Pro could have granted practically everything that Con said and still manage to prove his point.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
SchopenhauerIngsocTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a valid and strong argument. Pro addressed Con's points effectively. Pro wins the debate. Con forfeited a round. That means conduct to Pro. Neither side offered sources. So no source point given.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
SchopenhauerIngsocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the round, Schop' deserves the win in the round