The Instigator
M0nK3Y
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mall
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Morality

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 208 times Debate No: 92049
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

M0nK3Y

Pro

We sew and we reap...

If we reap more than we sew, it's irrational consumption, known as evil.

If we reap as much, or less than, we sew, it's rational consumption, known as good.

Reaping and sewing is one example, that's encircled by other examples.

Morality stems from nature, and flourishes in human nature!

Morality is a matter of relativity.
mall

Con

So "morality is a matter of relativity". I can see how one can arrive at this conclusion and possibly believe it. When we take a look around ourselves , the world and the universe, it's all on perception . We reap what we sew . Sew bad seed and reap poor crops. Sew good seed and reap bountiful , productive , fruitful seed. Sew negativity and reap negativity and vice versa. What can be wrong to one person can be right for another and vice versa. So therefore morality is subjective and relative.

Here is why I believe morality , at least fundamentally is objective . Not in terms of a person's idea of what it is or a dogma. But the fundamental criteria of do's and don'ts in existence . Basically what has been laid out as chief principles since there ever has been such a thing . Whether one will accept it or not , acknowledge it or not, everything appears to have an order to it . Everything in science , astronomy , health , arithmetic has an order to it. The order is basically the do's and don'ts in any and all situations that the result comes about . This is the way in which any one thing is regulated if not more presumably. It has been understood that the result that has not come about as intended is classified as an incorrect process to get the result . The result that has come about as desired or requested is classfied as the desired result or correct process. Now clearly things that mankind has designed with a purpose or to fulfill a certain purpose can be categorized in two distinct forms of use . The Incorrect use category applies when a thing is used for the wrong purpose which may be the purpose that the person has decided to use it for. The correct use category applies when the use of the item has fulfilled its assigned task, design and purpose . These are examples of objective right and wrong , incorrect or correct. Which right is synonymous with moral and wrong being synonymous with immoral. Now when it comes to people behavior and actions of ourselves, are there really do's and dont's or is it on the matter of each individual person? Well applying the same understanding , what are the purposes for us being people being in existence? What's the purspose for everything that we do ? Once we learn that purpose , do we follow the regulations for that purpose ? That purpose brings about a result . Do we drop that result and look towards relativity . Does it just depend on what a person believes? I have come to believe that we all exist to live . All the do's and don'ts are wrapped around whether we live or stop living . As well as the universe that maintains by natural laws or do's and don'ts to sustain in existence . It makes all the difference unless a person doesn't believe we are here to exist to an aim but to just have no purpose , unimportant of the outcome or result . None of this matters of what we see before us. It's all relative and dependent on whatever is present at the moment. Whether that's emotion, tradition , philosophy , custom , etc. . Now the further one goes in this direction of subjectiveness the more meaningless existence gets other than what one fabricates it to be . So it has been strongly, deductively concluded being that we don't have a blueprint for human life , we see apparently that there is cause and effect . Objectively it can get to be very important to follow and pay attention to the action and result for it's that very dividing line that changes everything according to having life or ceasing to exist . Which again may not be seen as valuable to those whom hold it as such.
Debate Round No. 1
M0nK3Y

Pro

My apologies, but I think your argument was unsubstantial.

Prior to explaining your own idea of morality, you dismissed, or were ignorant of, my Round 1 argument. without scrutiny. The only part of your Round 1 argument, where you tried to contradict me, was with, what I consider to be, a poor against analogy.

"We reap what we sew. Sew bad seed and reap poor crops. Sew good seed and reap bountiful, productive, fruitful seed. Sew negativity and reap negativity and vice versa. What can be wrong to one person can be right for another and vice versa. So therefore morality is subjective and relative".

I would like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that morality is "subjective and relative", based on the statements that came prior.

The idea that morality can be different per individual, is correct, but it doesn't contradict my argument - it agrees with it.

Morality is not subjective, humans do not choose the effect of some cause, they choose the cause of some effect.

We choose what we sew, but what we reap is dependent on what we had sewn and our efforts toward the growth of that seed.

I would like to highlight the statement in my Round 1 argument where I said "Morality stems from nature, and flourishes in human nature" - in other words, we cannot change the seeds, but we have the ability to support them as they flourish.

We cannot change morality, but we have a greater understanding of morality than most other species on the planet, we can execute good, and evil, greater than other Earth life.

We cannot honestly claim that killing is immoral without an opinionated argument. There are questions that we must ask ourselves before we kill, and humans are conditioned to answer these questions. An immoral act could be to over-kill, or allow evil to prosper. How much killing is too much? Should this person be killed? The questions on a 'moral killers' mind.

Morality is not simple to explain, but the human mind comprehends morality wordlessly. This is natural instinct and condition.

Morality is relative to life, because any evil act will have maleficent-consequences. If humans cut down all trees on Earth, then anyone who breathes-in oxygen will suffocate to death.

Again, killing is not directly immoral, so if I were to kill someone, there would be no natural repercussions other than it's against man-made laws and there would be police intervention. There is nothing directly immoral or moral, but humans may be good or evil in any context; kindness and suicide can be both moral or immoral - dependent on the humans will.

To conclude my Round 2 argument, morality is a matter of relativity because we reap what was sewn.
mall

Con

Well from what I took from your premise is that morality is relative . How does subjectiveness come into play? Well that's how I understand and interpret relativity as another term for subjectiveness. All we're really talking about here is something occurring dependent on another. Something being what it is based on another. In this topic, something is deemed immoral due to the idea which is subjective-ness of another. While something else is deemed moral by the idea which is the subjectivity of another. Meaning there is no solid criteria or foundation across the board to follow. Depending on who you ask you will get different input on every specific subject concerning what's called ethics.

So with no foundation, criteria or standard, it's all plastic so to speak. Meaning like genetics that alter and adapt the organism according to it's environment , the government changes laws according to who is in office as the society votes them in. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about the "reap what you sew" statement. You pretty much reiterated what was basically in my last post. In essence you get out what you put in and that's as straightforward as it goes. People can decide anything they want to like choosing objectively between what to do and what not to do. As it was put forth, there is cause and effect in everything. So just simply understand it this way as much as possible. An action that one chooses begets a result. That's it, an action that one chooses begets a result. Whether one will accept why is there a particular result in the first place regardless of anything we do, hopefully one will be heuristic to find out. So people make all kinds of choices. Does that mean that there isn't a specific criteria required to be followed just because we can make choices? Like a choice to go outside , oppose and defy the order of things. Which will go into how does morality get it's criteria ? How has it been fashioned into a manual of instructions for good deeds minus evil? Murder was mentioned as being understood as something wrong to do. How do we figure that? Then it was mentioned direct killing or indirect killing is not wrong or entirely wrong. Well how is this determined besides with an insubstantial, insufficient , inadequate explanation of an idea that humans have ? See that has yet to be elaborated on in reference to this relative morality notion.

I have already explained and you can re-read the previous post to get clarity. I have given an exposition on how it's been concluded that morality would have objective regulations. See when it's all relative, there really is no clear understanding on what morality is based on. Morals change from person to person. They as in individuals ,put into exactly what they get out which is decision making. Those decisions are different between everyone based on their individual ideas. It's what they believe to be wrong or not. So with all this inconsistency , morality is abstract. How can something be wrong here and not wrong there?? It's one or other other. It either exists or it doesn't . The dividing line is erased or is just blurred.
As far as when we are talking about nature , what is meant when the word nature is used? I've understood it to be everything under the natural and not being taught or manipulated. So how does nature relate to morality? Well, morality is the identification of do's and dont's. How do we come to decide do one thing and not the other or not doing one thing and or opposed to something period? It's based on decision making which comes from the faculties of our brains. Which is the natural process in how our organs function. The whole point of discussion is, does morality have a firm fundamental basis or does the basis stop at one's opinion? I'm holding the position that when we look at morality as being only as meaningful as the way one single person sees it, there's truly a loss in cause in the value of positively affecting all collectively. If we're not all on one accord, that's usually where conflict arises. So the topic of this subject of not being more than relativity , or more meaning than what we give it if we decide to give it any at all, what we do or not do in life doesn't matter at least in essential principle. Except the result shows anything that we do changes the reality of us doing whatever we're doing to continue doing or perhaps never doing again(permanent cessation). Even this idea based on relativity and doing things any old kind of way won't prosper without universal rules.
Debate Round No. 2
M0nK3Y

Pro

"Depending on who you ask you will get different input on every specific subject concerning what's called ethics."

Again, you've shown complete disregard for the logic outlined in my argument.

I have already explained "Morality stems from nature, and flourishes in human nature".

I have already explained that there is nothing directly immoral or moral, but that any direct subject can be moral or immoral {i.e. kindness can be immoral; suicide can be moral}.

Thinking of kindness as only moral is stupidity, making the sophist idea that morality is subjective stupidity.

It's not the cause {i.e kindness} that is immoral or moral, it's the effect {the effect of your kindness}.

The species comes before the individual where morality is concerned. If an action of yours stupid for the species, it's an evil action.

It doesn't matter what each individual thinks is good and evil when coming to the conclusion "what's good and evil for humanity?", but what is evil for our survival. Whether an individual does or does not care about the survival of our species, doesn't matter.
mall

Con

So all the questions I put forth weren't answered. At least they were not answered in a sense that was clear. Reasoning of asking those questions was to get clarity and understanding . Which a lot of the argument presented from the pro side remains unclear .

Statements from the pro side :

"I have already explained "Morality stems from nature, and flourishes in human nature".

I have already explained that there is nothing directly immoral or moral, but that any direct subject can be moral or immoral {i.e. kindness can be immoral; suicide can be moral}."

If it was explained , it wasn't too clear . I still don't know where is the criteria coming from about this directly immoral or moral protocol . I don't know how this is being figured except that apparently it's just an idea of yours. If it is , then just indicate so. That's what I mean by subjective and it doesn't seem like you comprehend that word, let alone the word relative or relativity . Then it appears like the context is switched up when using these words when talking about people and being that they can't choose an effect or result. So you don't see how subjectivity fits. They choose a cause or something to that degree and not the effect . Be careful not to confuse the contexts on what people are saying and use effort to comprehend . A lot of this feedback has confused what I have stated and things I never stated . Now in round 2 it was emphasized that the meaning of what YOU meant when you stated " morality stems from nature , and flourishes from human nature" is that we don't choose the seeds we have but are in control to support them or in how they grow, etc. somewhere along that route.

Again , this has not been EXPLAINED on how you come to this conclusion . It was not verified at least to me on why or how this came to be . The statement " reap what you sew" is known to me best as one of the biblical adages . Everything that has been stated by you is nothing more than a claim yet to be backed up by anything other than what you say it is . It's nothing other than what the pro side claims it to be . Being that this is a "be all end all" round , there really is no point for further questioning . The response was or is , morality stems from nature . I don't know how or why that is . Just some idea that an individual is expressing . Again as it was brought up before about the purposes of humans which I still don't know your take on or what you believe , but moving on , here is the breakdown. The right and wrong categories tie in with some sort of purpose or else how would right and wrong be identified? (Rhetorical question) . I went to explaining how I arrive at my conclusions. I don't think any of that was examined by the opposing side.

From the pro side : "species comes before the individual where morality is concerned. If an action of yours stupid for the species, it's an evil action.

It doesn't matter what each individual thinks is good and evil when coming to the conclusion "what's good and evil for humanity?", but what is evil for our survival. Whether an individual does or does not care about the survival of our species, doesn't matter."

NONE of this is explicated to how this is or why this is in mankind. These are flat statements about good and evil functioning this way or that way . No explaining on how something is an evil action , on how it's stupid or non-intelligent behavior and how it's derived to be so . You say it doesn't matter what each individual thinks , then I don't see where relativity comes in at. Relative means depending on another for a cause to get an effect . If someone has their own idea of right and wrong and is deciding what to be done or not to be done according to their ideas, best believe their thoughts matter . Their thoughts weigh in heavy . That's why it's reiterated to expound these points more in depth. Maybe the confusion is in what your meaning when using these words to communicate .

In conclusion , again I take the position that fundamental morality , not the morality that people pick and choose over , but morality itself is not relative . Meaning TRUE good and bad, TRUE right and wrong don't change from person to person outside of their minds at least . There is an order to things that carry on and fulfill a purpose . Everywhere one may travel in the known universe there is universal law and principle to keep everything going as it is . What other use is there besides the use that's in place.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by doorhinge 6 months ago
doorhinge
I would debate this, but I honestly just debated a very similar topic not too long ago.
Posted by Wylted 6 months ago
Wylted
Stop multi accounting Vi Spex
Posted by M0nK3Y 6 months ago
M0nK3Y
Reiterate?
Posted by MagicAintReal 6 months ago
MagicAintReal
What's the resolution?
No votes have been placed for this debate.