The Instigator
Sidex
Pro (for)
The Contender
redpurpleswimmingpool
Con (against)

Objectify 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
redpurpleswimmingpool 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: 11/23/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 353 times Debate No: 97293
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

Sidex

Pro

Can you objectify morality?

Please forgive my apparent lack of education. I have had a difficult time being around people.

I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information based reason and logic.

I will create a logic step attempting to prove the objectivity of morality.
I have been searching for truth my entire life. I guess I'm just a kid trying to find his way in the world. I have always been trying to find the answer to "When should we act on what we know and don't know?" This is a question in which the answer implies why we do things, in addition to what we should and should not do. Much of my argument will be based on inductive reasoning.

Humanity will become extinct, whether it's tomorrow or the at end of time. Wouldn't an ultimate goal of anyone who is logical be to push that specific point of time into the future as much as possible?

The Objectivity of Morality:

What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do.
"The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy
It is right to follow the sole meaning of life.
The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence.
Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive.
Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct.
You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity.

I would also put forth the laws of causality. Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event.

Isn't the right thing to do for every logical person is to try not to come to that point in time? This conceptual thinking solidifies the purpose of any educational institution. This does not imply, however, that every educational institution is conducive to maintaining humanity's survival.

Please understand I am trying to bring a new perspective to the world. I understand humanity still has a long way to go before accepting a person like me, however, I will still endeavor to save it.

I assure you there is much further discussion needed for this topic. Please understand that you should probably not debate if you can't suppress your ego. Hopefully, your ego would allow the possibility that Man hasn't discovered this until now, thus implying that the reason why this was discovered, in accordance to causality, was all the knowledge that humanity has learned so far has finally made this result. I also need full credit, regardless of how inelegant I am. I do need help creating a passable argument in which the world can accept.
redpurpleswimmingpool

Con

I will argue that morality is subjective but the way that you worded the question is interesting. You said, "can we objectify morality" which is technically correct. You can try to make anything objective but that does not make it objective. I will simplify the question: Is morality objective? My answer is no. The reason is that morality is trying to tangibly measure how "good" something is. What is "good" though? Is helping humanity "good"? To understand this question, we must first analyze what is "good." Good is the idea that our actions have more meaning than simply the outcome. Good is that our actions have a certain validity and meet a certain credential under a moral code. But what is "good"? Good is good and good helps others but what is "good"? I think that good is a word that we use to try to assign a higher power to how we act. Let me present an elementary example of this using children. Johnny stole a cookie from the cookie jar. So, his mom tells him that it is not good that he stole the cookie. Obviously, if he takes the cookie, that means that others cannot have it, but how do we know that it is not "good"? I think the idea that morality even exists is crazy because there is no objective morality. We try to make morality that benefits the most amount of people and we try to do it in the most systematic way possible but what makes it correct? For round 2, I will respond to your position and defend mine and I look forward to the remainder of this debate. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Sidex

Pro

1. If you objectify anything, then it is objective. If it is not objective, then it was not objectified. You can attempt to objectify a person by their looks, however, if the reason why is subjective, then you have in fact given your opinion. The only way you can truly objectify a person by their looks is to give a reason in regards to body features in relation to one another based on the Golden Ratio. It seems like you have mistaken the difference between when someone is saying that he/she has objectified something to an actual factual basis that it is objective. Admittedly since this my first debate, I don't know if you technically said I won.

2. Wouldn't an ultimate certain credential be that humanity should continue to exist?

3. As I said in my first argument, EVERY action that we take from this moment on would ultimately lead to the continued existence of humanity or end it. I'm pretty sure this is the butterfly effect. To apply my logic to your example, will him taking the cookie be conducive to ending humanity or not? Yes, that can't be answered entirely, however, if we turn this around and ask how will humanity end, then we can ask how does that happen? Then we can ask how that previous happening happened and continue that chain of events to the point when he stole the cookie.

4. Objectification is the process of making every question into true or false, yes or no, or like a how a computer operates, zeros and ones. As being an autistic individual, I have the first-hand experience that a human can think like a computer.
Since that implies an arbitrarily high number questions, the most efficient way of making it to the end is lumping them all together creating a variable in which you can use in an equation to define morality.

5. You definitely hit bulls-eye with that last question. That is the one question that plagued my entire life, the one question that took me almost 29 years to solve. I finally answered that question because I was able to ask a question even beyond that one. When does "being correct" become invalidated? My logic has determined that it's invalidated when there is no one left to answer it.

6. We have been dependent for so long for religion to answer our moral questions. Religion is a necessary institution for humanity, for it gives a shortcut explanation of why we do things. Because of an ego of a person, one cannot usually be a cold hard computer(it takes years of intense training). But even so, I do believe that Man can never find the truth of reality do without achieving enlightenment. In my opinion, any religion that leads to the end of humanity is wrong. I argue that since "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son," John 3:16, why would he tell anyone to end it? Even though I cannot say for certain other religions realize the same thing about their deities, I'm assuming that since most people aren't trying to kill each other is because they are aware that forming groups with a common ideology will help fortify institutions thus helping humanity continue to exist. The fact of the matter is that this hypothesis is not mutually exclusive to religion. One can even begin to say that killing in the name of God is wrong. Also keep in mind that there can be groups or individuals within the religion that may share a difference of opinion with the mass majority of the population of said religion.

7. If one man said the Earth is round and presented evidence as such, but millions of people said it was flat with their own rationale, which side would be morally correct and which should be morally correct?
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
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WereWrath 1 week ago
WereWrath
Wow You Just Literally Turned That Rainbow Concept Into A Really Deep Meaning Which In A Sense Can Be Exactly Compared To Race Since All Colors Are Light No Matter The Color Same With All Colors Of Humans Since We Are All Human Wow Thats Amazing. I Also Understand The Light Concept That One Made Me Look At Life In A Different Perspective Like In Order To Achieve True Happiness Aka True Light We Have To Find The Source And The Only Way To Find The Source Is To Go Through The Darkness To See Aka Going Through Pain To Gain Happiness Its Not A False Concept At All And Actually Made Me A Better Person Please Continue To Spread Word Sidex As Will I Because The World Needs Concepts Like This To Save Those Who Have Been Plagued By Typical Thinking Like The Two Others Commenting On Here Sadly :/
Posted by Sidex 1 week ago
Sidex
sorry this just came to me about vi_spex quote. This accepts rainbows by the logic that the light is or it is not. The amount of different colors of light does not matter. All races are purviewed under this morality. all that depends is whether there human or not.
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
if you know it you can describe it like this screen you are looking at
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
ok guys, im not trying to sound wise or all knowing whatever pedestal ur attempting to put me on just to tear me down. I found this because i needed it for me to know when its right to do something. After i realized what the implications were of this theory, i thought it prudent to share it with the world, giving a choice that we could never find before. I am going to serve people because its the only life i can ever know. mock me, call me an idiot, i dont care what you think of me. but that doesnt mean you should disregard the information. Im not trying to be a saint, im just trying to be myself. I dont what you guys are really looking for, but no, you do you, and ill do me. Both of u guys have to write your own stories, dont use mine, that goes for everyone else
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
everything has an opposite, there is no day without night, so to accept day one must accept the night, the dark, but this is not when you find rainbows
Posted by canis 2 weeks ago
canis
So mutch for world peace..F... it..(subjective).
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
the=known
an=unknown
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
what is the source of mars wise one
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
vi_spex
you want god to be real.. as i said, religious..

i dont care who is right, right is right

more word games to fit your obvius non case
Posted by Sidex 2 weeks ago
Sidex
i am tired of the object being unknown, and i am tired of the subject wishing to be known
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.