The Instigator
Rejuvenation
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Nihilism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,096 times Debate No: 12516
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

Rejuvenation

Pro

--Nihilism--

I've seen a lot of people question Nihilism lately. As I don't know where this "moral earthquake" is coming from, I'd like to ask some people what to have against the belief that life on earth is meaningless. If anyone wants to try to convince me to put down Nihilism, go ahead and try. This should be interesting.

As my own first statement, I should say that Nihilism as I know it is the simple belief that life on earth is a coincidence, and as such it does not need to have any purpose. As I do not believe in any higher power than the human mind, I will not listen to any of that "soul" this, "soul" that bull****. Why would life have any purpose? Why would we really have been brought here for any purpose if all most of us do is die meaninglessly?? What's the use of living your entire life happily if you can die early with dreams remaining on the edge of your mind, wondering about how far you could've gotten, and dieing at least peacefully, instead of dieing with all of your hopes and dreams having been shattered and crushed to tiny bits of the air we breathe?

Why would one person be lucky, and the other unlucky? Is it because of "karma"? Is it punishment from some illogical deity? Is there truly a use to such an illogical thing as life? Little story about how I became a nihilist, while only 8 years old at the time.

I used to be a very promising young kid. I had the best grades in school, passed any test easily, beat anyone at chess, had friends and hopes and dreams. Then, without warning, my mother fell ill. She had a brain tumor, cancer. To make matters worse, my dad got three heart attacks in a row recently after my mother fell ill. My uncle killed himself. My brother kept beating me up. My grandmother fell off of the sidewalk, breaking her hip, immobilizing her. My grandfather had a heart attack in the garden, while mowing the lawn. He never fully recovered. My mother got a second brain tumor, my grandmother died, my grades dropped greatly, my friends got sick of me and I never saw them again, and I started to search for answers in my computer. The only thing that has kept me from killing myself has been the many manga's I read. Thank you Tite Kubo, you lengthened my suffering. I'm truly grateful. This all happened in one year.

WHY oh WHY would there be any deity or higher power or purpose, if lives are THROWN AWAY that easily, like sheets of paper with failed attempts at a drawing. Why would any being be that cruel, that heartless, to make someone LOSE THEIR DREAMS AND HOPES! (Quote Mozart) It truly isn't. At the age of nine, after having spent my birthday alone in my room, I just lost it. I thought about life, and about why it should have a meaning.

And you know what? Our existence is futile. We cannot survive forever, and if we do, more and more people will come, more and more wars will come, more and more people will be killed! And you know what? WHO CARES! LET THEM ALL ROT AWAY IN THEIR GRAVES! NOONE CARES! ANY EFFORT TO PLEASE SOMEONE HAS AN UNDERLYING ALTERIOR MOTIVE! I HAD PUT SO MANY PEOPLE INTO THEIR GRAVES AT THE AGE OF NINE, WHY WOULD I CARE ABOUT DEATH?

...sorry, lost it but too tired to delete it all...If someone wants to discuss Nihilism, it's open. I'd like to convince some people life is not of any use. Not to take away your life as well as my own, but to make people realize. In realization lies life.
FREEDO

Con

I thank my opponent for instigating this exceptionally interesting debate.

=== RESPONSES ===

"As my own first statement, I should say that Nihilism as I know it is the simple belief that life on earth is a coincidence, and as such it does not need to have any purpose."

>> To expand on my opponents definition; here is the full official meaning:

Nihilism is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, metaphysical or ontological forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible or that contrary to our belief, some aspect of reality does not exist as such. [1]

"{story}"

>> Please don't doubt me when I say I feel your pain. I used to have the same philosophy and I was gravely depressed to the point of choosing to commit suicide. It's only a fluke accident that stopped it from happening thus giving me enough time to think as to come to a new philosophy that would lead me to the bright, cheery and successful persona I have today, which I'll do my best to share with you.

=== ARGUMENT ===

I plan to negate the resolution through four particular philosophies that I subscribe to. Three of them are relatively well-known and the other is the name I coined for my own much more specific personal philosophy.

--- 1. Rationalism ---

Usually this term is meant to be more broad but for this debate I'm am using it more specifically.

Rationalism is defined as:
In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge". [2]

This definition clearly allows for the word to be used with more specification. Throughout the course of the debate I will make my specifications more clear.

--- 2. Hedonism ---

Hedonism is defined as:
Hedonism is a school of ethics which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain). [3]

--- 3. Consequentionalism ---

Consequentionalism is defined as:
Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. [4]

--- 4. Systemism ---

I define Systemism as:
An philosophy based on these two tenets:
The First Tenant of Systemism is: Every conscious entity with the ability to feel both pleasure and non-pleasure logically has from thence a direct, intrinsic and unalienable purpose to pursue the former. The Second Tenant of Systemism is: The way in which pleasure can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it is a system and code of ethics which optimizes the potential pleasure acquired by any specific individual.

That's a mouth full but basically it's what you get when you mix all the other for-stated philosophies together.

--- Argument ---

I assert that Nihilism is not a valid moral concept because it completely leaves an individuals subjective experience out of the equation.

This is where Rationalism comes in.

My brand of Rationalism includes that all things need be recognized for whether we truly know them or not and except them as such for what they are. This is the denial of the concept of faith. Faith being defined as the accepting of something as true, which you do not know. As such, all knowledge can be based on only two things; self-evidents and axioms. A self-evident being something which you intrinsically know to be absolutely true because it is a part of your conscious being, such as the fact that you exist. An axiom being a concept which must be true because in any attempt to dismiss it you actually have to apply it, such as the statement "a thing is itself".

You intrinsically know that you can feel pleasure, non-pleasure and displeasure and that pleasure is better than either non-pleasure or displeasure. This is the base for Hedonism.

Sure, no thing outside yourself created you for any objective purpose, but the fact that you actually exist at all and have a consciousness with these abilities of pleasure and displeasure create an intrinsic meaning and value to your life.

I'll leave it at that for now. I am deeply looking forward to my opponents reply.

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Rejuvenation

Pro

Nihilistic views are often caused by a lack of that so-called "pleasure", which causes the loss of some, if not all of a person's moral. Nihilism is a philosophy in which most Nihilists became Nihilists without knowing, it is a process and not a choice. As people start thinking more realistically, they start questioning those things a certain "God" placed on this Earth.

"If...then why..." That is the question Nihilists faced in the first stage of "conversion". "If...then that can't be..." That is the second stage question. "If...then it is meaningless." That is the final outcome. No matter which question a person may ask, or no matter what statement a person makes, the outcome is always that all human struggle is needless and meaningless. As far as I know, that is the true being of a Nihilist.

The ability to feel pleasure lies within the ability to create a pleasurable environment. If something or someone disrupts that environment, then there will be no pleasure or joy. There will be pain because you were hoping so dearly for something and it didn't come true.

If you ask a psychopath why he killed something, he'll answer that either he does not know, or that he simply loved the feeling. Wrong. People are violent, aggressive animals. That is our nature. Whether you kill someone or see someone die, there is always that little spark lighting up in you that is loving all the violence and bloodshed.

As for your Systemism, even though it sounds logical, if a being has once pursued happiness in one way and failed miserably, then that same person will need to be persuaded to try that same thing again. It isn't going to try again after having such a bad experience the first time. That much is simple instinct. As such, this theory is incomplete.
FREEDO

Con

=== RESPONSES ===

" 'If...then why...' That is the question Nihilists faced in the first stage of 'conversion'. 'If...then that can't be...' That is the second stage question. 'If...then it is meaningless.' That is the final outcome. "

>> That entirely does not follow. Questioning everything is a extremely necessary procedure but it's proper application certainly doesn't lead to meaninglessness. May I remind you that you have the burden of proof here to show why, not just make the statement that it is.

"The ability to feel pleasure lies within the ability to create a pleasurable environment. If something or someone disrupts that environment, then there will be no pleasure or joy. There will be pain because you were hoping so dearly for something and it didn't come true."

>> Firstly, the ability to feel pleasure does indeed lie within the opportunity of having a pleasurable environment but it does not solely rest upon that. The majority of one's happiness is a choice, an attitude. To be optimistic, positive, enthusiastic, cool-headed, calm, and rational is to live a much more fulfilling life.
Secondly, the fact that there is suffering in the world does not eliminate the fact there there is also joy and pleasure. They are both here. And we intrinsically have a purpose to pursue the joy and avoid the suffering, you failed to deny this.

"If you ask a psychopath why he killed something, he'll answer that either he does not know, or that he simply loved the feeling. Wrong. People are violent, aggressive animals. That is our nature. Whether you kill someone or see someone die, there is always that little spark lighting up in you that is loving all the violence and bloodshed."

>> Firstly, you are 100% correct to say that basic human nature is violent, that is how we survived to get where we are today. But you are very wrong to say that everyone receives a spark of pleasure from watching suffering. What you miss is that there's a difference between the entirety of human nature and basic human nature, for there is more to it than just the basic. I like to call it "the short-circuit of human nature", it is that thing which defies common sense and natural feelings which we evolved to better our survival, it is higher intelligence. I call it a short-circuit because we evolved it to help with survival but it's implications can actually cancel-out other parts of our nature which I refer to as "basic nature". This higher intelligence is responsible for things like empathy and compassion and many things which aren't necessarily survival based. Instead, it is not based on any intrinsic motive, it self-generates one. This creates one of the defining features about humans, the flexibility of our psyches which allows for the immense diversity between us unlike anything seen in the rest of the animal kingdom. Traits like racism, sexism and violence are all apart of our basic nature but can be phased out by our higher-intelligence for the sake of happiness and a loving, compassionate, peaceful environment.

"As for your Systemism, even though it sounds logical, if a being has once pursued happiness in one way and failed miserably, then that same person will need to be persuaded to try that same thing again. It isn't going to try again after having such a bad experience the first time. That much is simple instinct. As such, this theory is incomplete."

>> This refutation is ridiculous. Firstly, it is impossible to fail at achieving the happiness generated through changing your attitude, it may be made less affective by a coincidental increase of displeasure in the environment but it will always make a change for the better because you perceive problems differently. Secondly, after changing your attitude to be more positive and cool-headed all problems you encounter will become considerably easier to solve thus maximizing pleasure even further which in-turn improves your attitude and causes a domino effect of success. Thirdly, there is an innumerable amount of ways to obtain joy, not just one. Fourthly, after failing once at something you learn valuable lessons about it that considerably improve your chances of succeeding during the next try.

=== ARGUMENT ===

My opponent never refuted any of my philosophies.

=== SOUTH PARK ===

Lol, just watch it, skip to 19:00 to like 20:30 is good: http://www.southparkstudios.com...

The moral: Sometimes we have to take the bad with the good. I used to absolutely hate my life, every waking moment was pure unbearable agony and I used to cry myself to sleep every night completely void of hope. But now looking back, as horrible as it was, I'm very glad it all happened. I learned all of life's most important lessons during that period. It pushed me to question and to discover. Now instead of being a sheep, I actually have a solid philosophy that I developed on my own which gives me perfect and logical reason to be moral, to be happy and to have purpose instead of having to take anything on faith.
Debate Round No. 2
Rejuvenation

Pro

" 'If...then why...' That is the question Nihilists faced in the first stage of 'conversion'. 'If...then that can't be...' That is the second stage question. 'If...then it is meaningless.' That is the final outcome. "

>> That entirely does not follow. Questioning everything is a extremely necessary procedure but it's proper application certainly doesn't lead to meaninglessness. May I remind you that you have the burden of proof here to show why, not just make the statement that it is. "

All questioning answers in either meaninglessness or violence and unhappiness over not finding the right answer. It is simple logic. If you ask me where to buy some soda, I'd answer either not to buy soda at all, since it is bad for your health, or not to buy soda, as it will be expensive. The reason you'd buy a soda is to attain a nice feeling in drinking it, since it tastes better then water. But regardless, it is less healthy, packed with sugar and calories and will kill you if you drink too much of it, both mentally and physically. Anyone can give these kinds of answers to any question. That is what I meant, and being a Nihilist, it is far easier to get to this answer than to get to any other answer.

"The ability to feel pleasure lies within the ability to create a pleasurable environment. If something or someone disrupts that environment, then there will be no pleasure or joy. There will be pain because you were hoping so dearly for something and it didn't come true."

>> Firstly, the ability to feel pleasure does indeed lie within the opportunity of having a pleasurable environment but it does not solely rest upon that. The majority of one's happiness is a choice, an attitude. To be optimistic, positive, enthusiastic, cool-headed, calm, and rational is to live a much more fulfilling life.
Secondly, the fact that there is suffering in the world does not eliminate the fact there there is also joy and pleasure. They are both here. And we intrinsically have a purpose to pursue the joy and avoid the suffering, you failed to deny this. "

The choice to be joyful, to be cheerful does not entirely lie with the person at hand. It lies within that person's nature, his or hers genetics. If a person's parents have been miserable for their entire lives, then that person will grow up miserable, too. If that person's great-great-great grandparents have lived miserably and died miserably, then it will still be visible in the next generations. It is as simple as that. Secondly, I never denied there being some sort of pleasure in this world. I only said that whatever pleasure one may feel, there will always be some tiny bit of them that wants it even better, or is completely unsatisfied. There is no such thing as true happinness. That is what I tried to say.

"If you ask a psychopath why he killed something, he'll answer that either he does not know, or that he simply loved the feeling. Wrong. People are violent, aggressive animals. That is our nature. Whether you kill someone or see someone die, there is always that little spark lighting up in you that is loving all the violence and bloodshed."

>> Firstly, you are 100% correct to say that basic human nature is violent, that is how we survived to get where we are today. But you are very wrong to say that everyone receives a spark of pleasure from watching suffering. What you miss is that there's a difference between the entirety of human nature and basic human nature, for there is more to it than just the basic. I like to call it "the short-circuit of human nature", it is that thing which defies common sense and natural feelings which we evolved to better our survival, it is higher intelligence. I call it a short-circuit because we evolved it to help with survival but it's implications can actually cancel-out other parts of our nature which I refer to as "basic nature". This higher intelligence is responsible for things like empathy and compassion and many things which aren't necessarily survival based. Instead, it is not based on any intrinsic motive, it self-generates one. This creates one of the defining features about humans, the flexibility of our psyches which allows for the immense diversity between us unlike anything seen in the rest of the animal kingdom. Traits like racism, sexism and violence are all apart of our basic nature but can be phased out by our higher-intelligence for the sake of happiness and a loving, compassionate, peaceful environment. "

I fail to see the problem in my reasoning. It is true that we have something called a "common sense" these days, but that does not mean that no man has ever wanted to kill or fight. It just means that we are surpressing urges in order to not make a complete fool out of ourselves in front of our so-called "friends". If one person asks another to marry him or her, then that person wants an answer. That person wants to either use the person he or she has asked to marry for something, or wants to be together with that person, no matter the cost. It is either instinct, or underlying reasoning. Love does not exist.

"As for your Systemism, even though it sounds logical, if a being has once pursued happiness in one way and failed miserably, then that same person will need to be persuaded to try that same thing again. It isn't going to try again after having such a bad experience the first time. That much is simple instinct. As such, this theory is incomplete."

>> This refutation is ridiculous. Firstly, it is impossible to fail at achieving the happiness generated through changing your attitude, it may be made less affective by a coincidental increase of displeasure in the environment but it will always make a change for the better because you perceive problems differently. Secondly, after changing your attitude to be more positive and cool-headed all problems you encounter will become considerably easier to solve thus maximizing pleasure even further which in-turn improves your attitude and causes a domino effect of success. Thirdly, there is an innumerable amount of ways to obtain joy, not just one. Fourthly, after failing once at something you learn valuable lessons about it that considerably improve your chances of succeeding during the next try. "

You cannot stay happy forever. Something will happen to change your attitude towards people. Bad things don't just lurk around the corner. They jump right at you. As for your second answer, the same occurs when you just don't care. You become able to solve the problems at hand, then get disappointed again, and then fall back into despair. Thirdly, as there are more ways to enjoy things, there are also a number of requirements, which are even more limited because of our laws and regulations. And I agree with you on the fourth one, it's just that people become afraid of trying after a while.

=== ARGUMENT ===

"My opponent never refuted any of my philosophies."

I disagree with you on that. I think I answered accordingly.

"The moral: Sometimes we have to take the bad with the good. I used to absolutely hate my life, every waking moment was pure unbearable agony and I used to cry myself to sleep every night completely void of hope. But now looking back, as horrible as it was, I'm very glad it all happened. I learned all of life's most important lessons during that period. It pushed me to question and to discover. Now instead of being a sheep, I actually have a solid philosophy that I developed on my own which gives me perfect and logical reason to be moral, to be happy and to have purpose instead of having to take anything on faith. "

I know some people just can't bear being unhappy, and they seek happinness in false theories and such and thus, get loose footholds. You can't stay happy forever. That is impossible. If you commit suicide, you'll die and never have felt regret over commiting suicide. You'll never suffer again. You'll never be afraid again. Perfect, right?
FREEDO

Con

"All questioning answers in either meaninglessness or violence and unhappiness over not finding the right answer. It is simple logic. If you ask me where to buy some soda, I'd answer either not to buy soda at all, since it is bad for your health, or not to buy soda, as it will be expensive. The reason you'd buy a soda is to attain a nice feeling in drinking it, since it tastes better then water. But regardless, it is less healthy, packed with sugar and calories and will kill you if you drink too much of it, both mentally and physically. Anyone can give these kinds of answers to any question. That is what I meant, and being a Nihilist, it is far easier to get to this answer than to get to any other answer."

>> Your elaboration makes absolutely no sense. You've confirmed my own philosophy in your example. You don't want to drink soda because it is bad for you. This is perfectly reasonable. You have weighed the negative effect of drinking the soda as being higher than any positive effect in terms of pleasure. This is consequentionalism and hedonism. Meaninglessness would imply that you have nothing to base any kind of decision off of.

"The choice to be joyful, to be cheerful does not entirely lie with the person at hand. It lies within that person's nature, his or hers genetics. If a person's parents have been miserable for their entire lives, then that person will grow up miserable, too. If that person's great-great-great grandparents have lived miserably and died miserably, then it will still be visible in the next generations. It is as simple as that. Secondly, I never denied there being some sort of pleasure in this world. I only said that whatever pleasure one may feel, there will always be some tiny bit of them that wants it even better, or is completely unsatisfied. There is no such thing as true happinness. That is what I tried to say."

>> This argument simply fails on a scientific manner. There is no happiness gene and there is no proof to suggest that unhappiness is ever passed down genetically. My opponent needs to either dump this case or prove me wrong by providing such proof.
Then he said a series of statements which just do not connect. He said since we will always desire more we are never completely satisfied and because of that were are always completely unsatisfied. I really hope you see the huge hole there.

"I fail to see the problem in my reasoning. It is true that we have something called a "common sense" these days, but that does not mean that no man has ever wanted to kill or fight. It just means that we are surpressing urges in order to not make a complete fool out of ourselves in front of our so-called "friends". If one person asks another to marry him or her, then that person wants an answer. That person wants to either use the person he or she has asked to marry for something, or wants to be together with that person, no matter the cost. It is either instinct, or underlying reasoning. Love does not exist."

>> There is a big difference between ever wanting to kill and fight and always wanting to kill and fight, the latter is what you first stated and have yet to defend.
On love; this is completely false in a scientific sense. There is definitely such things as empathy and emotions which cause you to truly place the concerns of others before your own. This is fact.

"You cannot stay happy forever. Something will happen to change your attitude towards people. Bad things don't just lurk around the corner. They jump right at you. As for your second answer, the same occurs when you just don't care. You become able to solve the problems at hand, then get disappointed again, and then fall back into despair. Thirdly, as there are more ways to enjoy things, there are also a number of requirements, which are even more limited because of our laws and regulations. And I agree with you on the fourth one, it's just that people become afraid of trying after a while."

>> It is absolutely possible to stay happy for as long as you live, sure there will be things here and there which are negative but you can keep your over-all emotion positive. And because it is possible there is an intrinsic purpose to pursue it, which you still have yet to refute!

"I disagree with you on that. I think I answered accordingly."

>> O RLY? Here is what my philosophies have stated:

Our ability to judge morality comes from our ability to reason. Thus morality is essentially rationality. (not refuted)

We can feel happiness. Happiness is intrinsically good and thus logically causes a purpose to pursue it (not refuted)

Consequentionalism (actually backed-up)

"I know some people just can't bear being unhappy, and they seek happinness in false theories and such and thus, get loose footholds. You can't stay happy forever. That is impossible. If you commit suicide, you'll die and never have felt regret over commiting suicide. You'll never suffer again. You'll never be afraid again. Perfect, right?"

>> Wrong. The undeniable fact that we can feel happiness gives us an intrinsic purpose to pursue it. Suicide eliminates that opportunity. There is negativity in life but it is entirely possible to obtain more positivity than negativity. Because we can we have a purpose to. Furthermore, your claim that we can't be happy forever is entirely baseless.
Debate Round No. 3
Rejuvenation

Pro

">> Your elaboration makes absolutely no sense. You've confirmed my own philosophy in your example. You don't want to drink soda because it is bad for you. This is perfectly reasonable. You have weighed the negative effect of drinking the soda as being higher than any positive effect in terms of pleasure. This is consequentionalism and hedonism. Meaninglessness would imply that you have nothing to base any kind of decision off of. "

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that, if you buy and drink it, it will be bad for your health, and you will have to undergo the consequences in time. If you do not buy it, you will always have a feeling saying "what if I bought it, and...", and if you stop drinking altogether, you'll die. It doesn't matter what you do, in the end, the consequences will be negative.

>> This argument simply fails on a scientific manner. There is no happiness gene and there is no proof to suggest that unhappiness is ever passed down genetically. My opponent needs to either dump this case or prove me wrong by providing such proof.
Then he said a series of statements which just do not connect. He said since we will always desire more we are never completely satisfied and because of that were are always completely unsatisfied. I really hope you see the huge hole there.

Again, misunderstanding. What I meant was that a person always gets something from his or her grandparents. If your grandparents have been raised in a certain manner, then that way of doing things will be passed down on them, then on your parents, and finally on you. It is completely logical. A human being will never be able to be completely satisfied, because a human being will always strive for more, always specifically looking for flaws.

You missed my point here. I said that either they are completely unsatisfied, OR there is some tiny bit of them that wants it better. People put on faces in order not to get hurt, but in the end, those faces just cause them to be hurt far more badly.

>> There is a big difference between ever wanting to kill and fight and always wanting to kill and fight, the latter is what you first stated and have yet to defend.
On love; this is completely false in a scientific sense. There is definitely such things as empathy and emotions which cause you to truly place the concerns of others before your own. This is fact.

If a person sees a slaughter, no matter at what time, when, or where, they will always awaken some primal instinct to either run because of danger or join the fight to eliminate the source of the danger. It's instinct, not something we can help. About love; what I meant was that love is a chemical reaction in the brains, that makes you look at things more positively. As such, there is no such thing as "true love", because if the chemical process is replicated, that feeling can be felt for anyone. That's why I said love doesn't exist.

Our ability to judge morality comes from our ability to reason. Thus morality is essentially rationality. (not refuted)

You are partially right. Firstly, morals don't have to be rational. Things like "Oh, the ship is sinking, women and kids first to the rescue boats!" are completely irrational. The person with the highest survival chance should go first, but because women and children are (IN THEORY) weaker, they can go first. If it would have been rationally thought through, then men would've been the first to be saved, because a man's body is genetically stronger then a woman's. Irrational thinking has also lead to strange morality. As such, it can not be applied in any situation, but rather only in some.

We can feel happiness. Happiness is intrinsically good and thus logically causes a purpose to pursue it (not refuted)

I never even stated we can't pursue it, I did state we can never achieve a state of true happiness.

>> Wrong. The undeniable fact that we can feel happiness gives us an intrinsic purpose to pursue it. Suicide eliminates that opportunity. There is negativity in life but it is entirely possible to obtain more positivity than negativity. Because we can we have a purpose to. Furthermore, your claim that we can't be happy forever is entirely baseless.

It doesn't matter if you want to pursue it or not. If you are dead, you'll never feel anything again. Not happiness, not reason, and not sadness. Death is a morally superior state to life. As for my claim that we can't be happy forever, please look through the concept of biorhythm. At one point, every so many days, a person will be utterly unhappy, and only able to set up a fake mask of happiness. It's like holding back your tears; you don't want to look weak, but everyone can see your eyes turn red.
FREEDO

Con

"That's not what I meant. What I meant was that, if you buy and drink it, it will be bad for your health, and you will have to undergo the consequences in time. If you do not buy it, you will always have a feeling saying "what if I bought it, and...", and if you stop drinking altogether, you'll die. It doesn't matter what you do, in the end, the consequences will be negative."

>> False.
A negative ends is not insured in every, or even most, scenarios. This is evident. In this particular scenario there are both a negative AND a positive effect each way. It just comes down to weighing which direction gives more positive. If you're really in the mood for a soda than having one might be more positive, but if you have too much soda or unhealthy food as it is than it may be more beneficial not to.

"Again, misunderstanding. What I meant was that a person always gets something from his or her grandparents. If your grandparents have been raised in a certain manner, then that way of doing things will be passed down on them, then on your parents, and finally on you. It is completely logical. A human being will never be able to be completely satisfied, because a human being will always strive for more, always specifically looking for flaws."

>>First, there's two completely unconnected statements there. Secondly, on the first one, it depends what you mean. I got genes from my grandparents, other than that I haven't inherited much else. I'm the complete opposite of my family. They are hard-core conservative Christians, I am a completely anti-religious Socialist. Thirdly, on the first one, why does it even matter? What does this have to do with your resolution? Fourthly, on the second statement, what is wrong with wanting more? That is a very, very good thing! It would reeeeally suck if we didn't have the desire to always make things better. You're completely missing the other side of the coin.

"You missed my point here. I said that either they are completely unsatisfied, OR there is some tiny bit of them that wants it better. People put on faces in order not to get hurt, but in the end, those faces just cause them to be hurt far more badly."

>> Of course there's a part of them that wants it to be better! I can tell you right now that I am the happiest person I know but I also have the most passionate dreams about making things better. Some say my dreams are a little too idealist, a little too large. But my dreams don't depress me, pursuing my dreams plays a large part in my happiness.

"If a person sees a slaughter, no matter at what time, when, or where, they will always awaken some primal instinct to either run because of danger or join the fight to eliminate the source of the danger. It's instinct, not something we can help."

>> If someone sees a slaughter? They want might want to stop it, you say? I was not under the impression that this is a bad thing. Again, it is the desire for positivity. You have yet to dismiss how this could actually constitute a not only viable but essential construct for both morality and purpose.

"About love; what I meant was that love is a chemical reaction in the brains, that makes you look at things more positively. As such, there is no such thing as "true love", because if the chemical process is replicated, that feeling can be felt for anyone. That's why I said love doesn't exist."

>> Don't you see the error you make here? ALL things we think and feel are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less real! Rather, it confirms that it is. You say "that makes you look at things more positively", you not only acknowledge positivity here but you show precisely why it is a good thing. A life style centered largely around love is a MUCH happier one. And happiness is your intrinsic purpose, which you have yet to dismiss.

"You are partially right. Firstly, morals don't have to be rational. Things like "Oh, the ship is sinking, women and kids first to the rescue boats!" are completely irrational. The person with the highest survival chance should go first, but because women and children are (IN THEORY) weaker, they can go first. If it would have been rationally thought through, then men would've been the first to be saved, because a man's body is genetically stronger then a woman's. Irrational thinking has also lead to strange morality. As such, it can not be applied in any situation, but rather only in some."

>> The mistake that you are making here is to base morality off of survival. That would be committing the naturalistic fallacy. I contend that a society that would save the weaker is actually more reasonable, and as such more moral, because it is a society that can obviously be seen to sustain more happiness within it's populus.

"I never even stated we can't pursue it, I did state we can never achieve a state of true happiness."

>> Your measure of "true happiness" seems to be a world in which we don't want anything. I think this is sadly mistaken. It's my wanting of things that plays a large part in my happiness.

"It doesn't matter if you want to pursue it or not. If you are dead, you'll never feel anything again. Not happiness, not reason, and not sadness. Death is a morally superior state to life. As for my claim that we can't be happy forever, please look through the concept of biorhythm. At one point, every so many days, a person will be utterly unhappy, and only able to set up a fake mask of happiness. It's like holding back your tears; you don't want to look weak, but everyone can see your eyes turn red."

>> This makes absolutely no sense. Death is not morally superior, it is AMORAL. It has nothing to did with morals because, like you said, you feel nothing. Feeling is upon what I base my morality and purpose. I pursue things based on positive feeling. Consider this a score. A positive feeling gives you a +1 or something higher. A negative gives you a -1 or something lower. According to the moral system which I came to through reason which has not been refuted, morality and pleasure lies in having the highest score at any given time. Dieing is amoral and gives a score of 0. Now you may be thinking that we are all going to reach zero anyway because we all die, so what's the point? But death does not take away from any of the points you had before, it just means that it stops getting added to. So you still have an intrinsic purpose to pursue positive and avoid negative. The rational base for morality and purpose is upon this.
Debate Round No. 4
Rejuvenation

Pro

>> False.
A negative ends is not insured in every, or even most, scenarios. This is evident. In this particular scenario there are both a negative AND a positive effect each way. It just comes down to weighing which direction gives more positive. If you're really in the mood for a soda than having one might be more positive, but if you have too much soda or unhealthy food as it is than it may be more beneficial not to.

A very simple answer from my side: give me any situation, any action and I can give you a negative result. Anything, even in the smallest of portions can have a negative result. There is no such thing as pure positivity, from which, I might add, I never stated there was no such thing as positivity. I merely stated there was nothing like pure (mark my words) positivity.
I acknowledge the opposite being true, as well.

>>First, there's two completely unconnected statements there. Secondly, on the first one, it depends what you mean. I got genes from my grandparents, other than that I haven't inherited much else. I'm the complete opposite of my family. They are hard-core conservative Christians, I am a completely anti-religious Socialist. Thirdly, on the first one, why does it even matter? What does this have to do with your resolution? Fourthly, on the second statement, what is wrong with wanting more? That is a very, very good thing! It would reeeeally suck if we didn't have the desire to always make things better. You're completely missing the other side of the coin.

They are unconnected because they are two answers to both of your statements. And you may not have inherited any of their ideals, but you have inherited a part of their way of living, through how you were raised. It is only natural to adept to your surroundings and take over certain activities and actions the people around you perform. It matters because you don't have control over all aspects of your life, and as such, if you were raised in a certain manner, you will behave in a certain manner, for example in a depressing way. Fourthly, it is wrong to always be wanting more. In fact, I believe it is one of the seven deadly sins, namely Greed. Dissatisfaction leads to different images on life, trying to solve your dissatisfaction by making up new things, like some religions or moral beliefs.

>> Of course there's a part of them that wants it to be better! I can tell you right now that I am the happiest person I know but I also have the most passionate dreams about making things better. Some say my dreams are a little too idealist, a little too large. But my dreams don't depress me, pursuing my dreams plays a large part in my happiness.

It might be natural, that doesn't exclude the fact that it is still a sin. To always want better things, no matter the consequences, leads to madness and eventually, destruction of that person's conciousness.

>> If someone sees a slaughter? They want might want to stop it, you say? I was not under the impression that this is a bad thing. Again, it is the desire for positivity. You have yet to dismiss how this could actually constitute a not only viable but essential construct for both morality and purpose.

They want to stop it because according to the brain it might be dangerous for the body. It isn't thinking any hero�c things like "Oh, let's not kill that guy because he is human even though he will kill me otherwise.". Nope, all it thinks is "Kill, then get the F*CK out!". I'd say that is immoral.

>> Don't you see the error you make here? ALL things we think and feel are chemical reactions in the brain. That doesn't make it any less real! Rather, it confirms that it is. You say "that makes you look at things more positively", you not only acknowledge positivity here but you show precisely why it is a good thing. A life style centered largely around love is a MUCH happier one. And happiness is your intrinsic purpose, which you have yet to dismiss.

I have never stated otherwise, but that just doesn't matter. For this subject, it doesn't matter what causes the other emotions, because I only stated there not being anything like genuine love. That the same feeling can be felt for anyone in any emotion is irrelevant. The subject is love, and the question is if true love exists.

>> The mistake that you are making here is to base morality off of survival. That would be committing the naturalistic fallacy. I contend that a society that would save the weaker is actually more reasonable, and as such more moral, because it is a society that can obviously be seen to sustain more happiness within it's populus.

The main purpose of a being is to survive. We human beings have done something slightly different. We do not just want to survive, we want to live happily, which is a feeling based off of survival. In short, the main purpose of our beings is still survival.

>> Your measure of "true happiness" seems to be a world in which we don't want anything. I think this is sadly mistaken. It's my wanting of things that plays a large part in my happiness.

Not wanting anything means happinness. If you have no need for anything, that means you arealways satisfied and thus always relatively happy. Seems logical to me.

>> This makes absolutely no sense. Death is not morally superior, it is AMORAL. It has nothing to did with morals because, like you said, you feel nothing. Feeling is upon what I base my morality and purpose. I pursue things based on positive feeling. Consider this a score. A positive feeling gives you a +1 or something higher. A negative gives you a -1 or something lower. According to the moral system which I came to through reason which has not been refuted, morality and pleasure lies in having the highest score at any given time. Dieing is amoral and gives a score of 0. Now you may be thinking that we are all going to reach zero anyway because we all die, so what's the point? But death does not take away from any of the points you had before, it just means that it stops getting added to. So you still have an intrinsic purpose to pursue positive and avoid negative. The rational base for morality and purpose is upon this.

If you do not feel anything, you cannot feel the positivity or negativity you got in your previous life. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you do in life, as any feeling gotten in life is quickly swept away by death. The ultimate end that exists for all beings in creation doesn't judge. It simply throws our lives away. Everyone, no matter the circumstances, feels the same in death.
FREEDO

Con

"A very simple answer from my side: give me any situation, any action and I can give you a negative result."

>> Wow, hold on there. The claim by yours which I negated was not that some negative turn out can be found but that every turn out is negative. That is what you said. All you've done here is repeat what I have actually said. There are potential negative turnouts and potential positive turnouts. We have an intrinsic purpose to pursue the positive.

"There is no such thing as pure positivity, from which, I might add, I never stated there was no such thing as positivity. I merely stated there was nothing like pure (mark my words) positivity.
I acknowledge the opposite being true, as well."

>> This is precisely where you fail. You're assertion that there is no "pure positivity", whether true or false is pointless because you have stated very clearly here that positivity does exist and have not once refuted that we have an intrinsic purpose to pursue it. This means the Nihilistic philosophy falls apart.

"They are unconnected because they are two answers to both of your statements. And you may not have inherited any of their ideals, but you have inherited a part of their way of living, through how you were raised. It is only natural to adept to your surroundings and take over certain activities and actions the people around you perform. "

>> Whether that is true or not, we do not always, and neither should we always, do what is natural.

"It matters because you don't have control over all aspects of your life, and as such, if you were raised in a certain manner, you will behave in a certain manner, for example in a depressing way."

>> Oh come on. Man up to the facts. You can't blame everyone for your own problems. This is precisely why you have yet to fix the problems; not because they can't be fixed, they certainly can, but because you haven't realized where they all come from. Your family isn't the problem, Nihilism is the problem. You act like Nihilism is the realization of all this despair that can't be avoided, but that couldn't be farther from the truth, it is the SOURCE of the despair itself.

"Fourthly, it is wrong to always be wanting more. In fact, I believe it is one of the seven deadly sins, namely Greed."

>> Besides the paradox of a Nihilist believing in sins, this is precisely one of the reasons you are so depressed. You OBVIOUSLY DO want things or else you would have already killed yourself. There is nothing wrong or immoral about selfishness, my friend. Why are you doing this debate? Because you wanted to. Why do you eat? Because you want to. Why do you associate with others? Because you want to. Why do you do ANYTHING AT ALL? Because you want to. Why do you want to? Because it makes you...happy? YES, happy! Fulfilling these desires makes you HAPPY! To not fulfill them means more misery. You are an individual conscious entity who intrinsically knows in of his own being that some feelings are good and some are bad. You pursue the good! But your philosophy is holding you back from doing this because it denies that the pursuit is even valid, a proclamation for which it has a complete absence of reason and refuses to even address. You want happiness, correct? To say no is insanity. To say yes but call yourself immoral for it is incredible ignorance.

"Dissatisfaction leads to different images on life, trying to solve your dissatisfaction by making up new things, like some religions or moral beliefs."

>> Guess what man! You actually can solve those dissatisfactions! And without the need for any baseless religious beliefs. You DO NOT need religion to have morality. Morality is implied by reason. It is implied by self-evidences and axioms. I used to be on the edge of suicide, now I am the happiest person I know! And I am not stretching that to sound better for the debate! Ask around on this site, I'm Mr.Happypants.

"It might be natural, that doesn't exclude the fact that it is still a sin. To always want better things, no matter the consequences, leads to madness and eventually, destruction of that person's consciousness."

>> Woe, woe woe. To want things to be better no matter the consequences?? You don't see the paradox of that? You can never want things to be better IN SPITE of consequences because wanting them to be better at all is IN LIGHT of the consequences. What you said makes no sense. Better consequences is the bottom line, period.

"They want to stop it because according to the brain it might be dangerous for the body. It isn't thinking any hero�c things like "Oh, let's not kill that guy because he is human even though he will kill me otherwise.". Nope, all it thinks is "Kill, then get the F*CK out!". I'd say that is immoral."

>> That is completely baseless!! There IS this actuall thing that exists called EMPATHY. It DOES have people place others BEFORE themselves. THIS HAPPENS. And this is a very good thing. Because embracing empathy creates a much happier and stable person, not only biologically but environmentally as well.

"I have never stated otherwise, but that just doesn't matter. For this subject, it doesn't matter what causes the other emotions, because I only stated there not being anything like genuine love. That the same feeling can be felt for anyone in any emotion is irrelevant. The subject is love, and the question is if true love exists."

>> Oh? You stated it? I'm so sorry, excuse me. I didn't realize you were God and everything you say correct...IT IS BASELESS. Whatever you mean by "true love" is semantical but love DOES exist, it IS good and having a life filled with it DOES create a more fulfilled life. So what you say here in no way refutes the point I was making.

"The main purpose of a being is to survive. We human beings have done something slightly different. We do not just want to survive, we want to live happily, which is a feeling based off of survival. In short, the main purpose of our beings is still survival."

>> Oh wow, I can't tell you how strange this is for me. This is EXACTLY what I would tell myself before. It is sad and wrong.
First off, you just flat-out said we have a purpose which refutes your entire stance on this debate. Second, you're wrong; saying the we have a purpose to survive because that's how things work in nature to create higher life-forms and that's what are basic nature is would again be committing the naturalistic fallacy. Nature IS based off of survival and reproduction but IS NOT based off of reason. The goal of nature is not to create the most reasonable life-form, even though it's possible that may occur do to that life-form having the best survival and reproduction odds. HOWEVER, morality IS based off of reason and IS NOT based off of survival and reproductions. What is right and wrong is not based on what is natural, it is based on what is reasonable. Nature and morality MAY coincide but do not ALWAYS. Many times nature is moral, such as in the case of empathy. Many times it is not, such as in the case of violence.

"Not wanting anything means happinness. If you have no need for anything, that means you arealways satisfied and thus always relatively happy. Seems logical to me."

>> Wrong, I'll use the point system again. Not wanting anything means you always have a 0. Wanting things and fulfilling them means you will have a +1 or higher.

"If you do not feel anything, you cannot feel the positivity or negativity you got in your previous life. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you do in life, as any feeling gotten in life is quickly swept away by death. The ultimate end that exists for all beings in creation doesn't judge. It simply throws our lives away. Everyone, no matter the circumstances, feels the same in death."

>> NO! Did everything I say there phase right through you? Death doesn't take away from the score because it isn't negative, it is 0. I'd reply more but I have ran out room.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
In just stating them, they don't. But I explained very clearly how they do. So I'm not sure what kind of answer you're exactly looking for.
Posted by MTGandP 6 years ago
MTGandP
Freedo, how do any of your moral philosophies refute the statement that there is no objective basis for morality?
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Haha, ok, thought that was weird.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Crap I messed up.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Pro had better sources?
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Btw FREEDO, there is an "unhappiness" gene, its called depression I think its on chromosome 23, and I have it. None the less you won, and life is not meaningless, just wanted to tell you that.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I didn't have enough room to write "thanks for the the debate". So thanks for the debate,
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
How is that wonderwoman?

Holyshit, I better post.
Posted by wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
nihilism is the reason i get out of bed
Posted by halu09 6 years ago
halu09
im con for it
so what did u call to our good value???a good moral??
if it didnt exist???
and if didnt exist why is there like that??
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
RejuvenationFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rbrownell 6 years ago
rbrownell
RejuvenationFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
RejuvenationFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CelticAlice 6 years ago
CelticAlice
RejuvenationFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
RejuvenationFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
RejuvenationFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05