Debate Rounds (5)
Humanity will become extinct, whether it's tomorrow or the end of time. Wouldn't an ultimate goal of anyone who is rational 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. Take for an instance all the actions you do in your life. We will represent all those actions with the letter "A". Now all those actions will lead to other people making their own actions. Those people's actions will be labeled as "B". Now all of those actions will lead to more people making more actions. We will call all of those actions "C". "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C". This is logic, point effect. We will get to the point where people no longer can take action(Humanity's end). We will call it "K". The alphabet is a representation of the timeline where "Z" will represent the end of time. Now I am arguing that ending humanity at "K" is wrong. I think we should be going for "Z". But in order to do that, we first have to figure out why is it ending at "K". However, I'm getting a little ahead of myself. What if you could change even a little of your actions today so it could lead to pushing that to even "L"? At which letter would it be worth it? (yes, realistically in this metaphor, the Earth itself would be completely barren unable to sustain any life due to the increasing temperature of the sun a lot sooner than "Z", but hopefully we have some kind of effective form of space travel by then.) Causality states that your actions today will bring extinction to Humanity eventually. We just have to keep trying to push that point as far as we can. At least that's what I want to do.
I've have had a few debates with to solidify this theory. Please go to www.debate.org and check out the debates regarding Objective Morality(there's several of them, but I believe they are all mine. The biggest thing to take from this is that we can finally have peace in the world. The morality is not mutually exclusive to any religion. It can exclude people who break the law in the name of God. Religion is not wrong. Man is. A world government can be formed with this code of morality. One that is not subjective to any person beliefs.
Here are some of what I believe are the finer points of this theorem:
"What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do". What is moral and what is ethical is what one should or can do. You cannot objectify morality because it gives us no choice but to take the morally acceptable action. Note I do not write the "right" action because morally you have no choice. "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" but does it? 50 shop assistants on one side and five heart surgeons on the other which group would you save from certain death at the expense of the other? Morally you must save the assistants even though the surgeons could save far more than fifty patients so ethically you should save them. Morality is linear thinking, straightforward and unchanging and cannot be objectified." -GrimlyF www.debate.org
Would 5 surgeons help the survival of humanity or 50 shop assistants? With all the information we have currently, 5 surgeons are more likely to save more lives than 50 shop assistants in the foreseeable future, mostly because their job is to save lives.
Because this theorem was never revealed in the history of mankind, the only objective way of determining of right and wrong was from the creation of ethics(which is still needed for lower governments but must be altered to match this morality). Absolutely, this argument can nullify ethics. Would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family? You essentially have to ask, does stealing this bread and feeding your family helps or hurts humanity's existence? This also asks the question, does not stealing this bread and not feeding your family help or hurt humanity's existence? It can't be answered factually because of all the variables between now and the end of humanity are unforeseen. However, it may be answered conceptually. In addition, we are aware of some current institutions that can promote human continuity(education for one). It is your moral choice whether or not you should help humanity.
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. 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.
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?
If you really loved someone, then why wouldn't care about their legacy as well? I'm sorry, but if you don't care about your legacy ending, then I believe you can't ever know what love truly is. Say we have come to the point in time when humanity ends. You have a great great great etc. grandchild dealing with the end of the world. I assume that nearing the end, life would really suck. What if you started to take actions today to move that point in time further? Would those actions of yours be worth it for that grandchild to have the opportunity to a child of their own since there was more time given? Is it right to love so much to give them the gift of time so they can experience the greatest aspects of life? I suppose it all depends on how much you love life yourself. If you are truly happy, would it be worth it to make another descendant have the opportunity of feeling it his/herself?
What is the most likely scenario/s to cause humanity's extinction? I think that if we had a consensus of those scenarios are, then we should do everything to prevent it. I would also argue that the people at the end of humanity wouldn't want to die. If you had lived at the end, would still not care. If you claimed self-interest, then why wouldn't you be upset at the past for not trying harder to save your life? I'm upset the dark ages happened for humanity. When should we become the bigger man? If you have made the choice not to care, what about those do?
The only people who don't care or even maliciously defy this morality are sociopaths and psychopaths. This theorem proves they are immoral.
This theorem does not say you should always think about the future first. It is implicit that if you don't care for yourself first, then you may not have a legacy to work on. This just says the most selfless reason you can have for being selfish is to worry about your legacy. You should always take care all your emotional, physical and mental needs first. But anything beyond that is a choice of morality. The general population of the world can feel love for one another. This love can travel through time as well.
The Truth is the source of light, but can only be revealed through the dark.
This is the final proof for the end is justified by the means. Just make sure the means is saving humanity, not any one country.
Since this is an answer to an "unanswerable" philosophical, then I would also argue that I am smarter than you. This isn't for boasting, just for people's ego. If I am wrong then find a way to prove it. I'm not arrogant, I'm confident, I'm only arrogant if I'm proven wrong.
I am arguing that I am pro/for "Objective Morality". You, my opponent, are arguing con/against "Objective Morality" or in other words, for subjective morality. I was implying you didn't argue your position. But you foolishly argued a statement that was objective and now your ego is bruised.
>>>What part of my original post was denying logic....
Since my theorem is based on absolute terms, I know I am right. Thus anyone who argues against is already wrong before the debate has begun. Since my argument is truly objective, yours must be subjective. Your first argument was an objective statement to YOU. But since you are subjective for arguing, the statement itself was formed by bias, yours or the worlds. It appears you have denied the logic of your bias long ago. So I ask again, " if you're as subjective as the morality in which you defend, then how can you ever be right?"
Off topic, do you think can lose that ego enough to answer, "If there was a chance to unite the world in a common goal to save itself, would you deny it because you're adamant on keeping a pessimistic view on life?" In addition to, "Is it better to live in a world of love than hate?" Don't worry, not all can be that brave.
"Off topic, do you think can lose that ego enough to answer, "If there was a chance to unite the world in a common goal to save itself, would you deny it because you're adamant on keeping a pessimistic view on life?" In addition to, "Is it better to live in a world of love than hate?" Don't worry, not all can be that brave." Ok the first half of what you said about a common goal for Humanity well it depends on what that goal is if its something i disagree with on every level then No. As for "is it better to live in a world of Love than hate" Sure i guess but that depends heavily on what you see as Love me and you could have very different ideas of what that is
And Lastly "Don't worry, not all can be that brave." how has any of this been brave we are typing on Key boards in an online debate site Lets not act like a Keyboard warrior
Because you have taken the effort to lose your ego in your following arguments, I will endeavor to make peace. If you feel like this is an act of cowardice or if you feel like pressing on the issue then I will respond in kind.
>>>Ok the first half of what you said about a common goal for Humanity well it depends on what that goal is if its something i disagree with on every level then No.
Perhaps I can convince you by exposing my bias to what this whole theorem means to me. There is a religious aspect to this all that I do try to stay away from because it is conjecture. It's conjecture based on this theorem, though.
>>>Sure i guess but that depends heavily on what you see as Love me and you could have very different ideas of what that is.
You are correct in that, so instead of attacking you right back, I am going to throw myself at your mercy.
My name is Jeromey Mark Henderson and I am an autistic genius with dissociative identity disorder(multiple personalities). My whole entire life was about finding the difference between right and wrong. It proved a bit more difficult considering that morality turned out to be subjective. However, since I have an autistic personality, I have always had an objective view on life. I am a sociopath, which gives me the choice follow this theorem or not. One of my defining personalities is a narcissist with the messiah complex. It is solely that personality that has prevented from doing "true evil". I refuse to harm humanity. I refuse to take advantage of someone less intelligent than me for my own personal gain. But I could never have given the reason why, until now. Yes, school did not work out for me. Yes, I am alone because I could never share other people's morality in addition to their hypocrisy. I'm not judging, only stating something through an objective lens.
There have been a few people like me(there are differences as well, we are not all the same) throughout history that has tried to keep humanity on the moral path.(Abraham, Mohammed, Jesus, Bhudda, Confucious, Joan of Arc, etc, even some non-religous, Socrates, Tolstoy, Da Vinci, etc) Everyone who was like me has realized this truth that humanity comes first. The conflict and even misinterpretation of these men/women are from Man's ego. Try to think humanity going trough the stages of life as a human being. Because I know the bible most of all religions, I am going create the analogy based on it, but it is very important to understand that this is what all those people are trying to do in every religion. So you start at Abraham who God told to kill his son Isaac. Now why did God do this? The most important aspect of understanding how I came to this conclusion is that you need both love and emptiness. In order to achieve that emptiness you need to lose your ego (Buddha's enlightenment). When you do that you essentially think of only ones and zeros without letting your emotion or other bias cloud your judgment. So, whether it's a being from heavens or completely in the head of Abraham, he was tasked to kill his son. Now in order to lose a conscience, one must be emotionally devastated. I think you can't get more emotionally devastated than killing your offspring. This traumatic event could have allowed a loss of conscience that made Abraham very wise because he saw the world in binary while still having his original conscience. I would like to take a moment to say that this was still a one in a billion shot. I am speaking subjectively right now, but this is still a very dumb way to get that enlightenment. Understand becoming a sociopath gives far more unpredictability than being born one. Now the covenant that was made with God was based on blood. Since at the time, relatively speaking, humanity was still trying to learn to walk(stages of life), forming a group based blood ensures the group"s survival. And so a couple generations later a nation was born known as Israel. Eventually, Moses was born years later and now a new covenant has been made. The new covenant brought law to the Isreal nation because let's face it, more people means more egos means more conflict. These guys(Abraham, Moses) knew about this theorem(in their own understanding) and made their laws based on it. If you look at the individual laws of the ten commandments, then you can see why each law was created at the TIME PERIOD in accordance with this theorem(the group must thrive). Please keep in mind that I am not trying to insinuate either way that God exists or not, I'm just looking at this objectively. Now if you know about humanity, we have a terrible track record against reason and logic. This indicates that in order for people to keep their egos in check, religion must exist(again not proof that God exists either way). We're going to skip a few prophets ahead and jump to the Christ. This was a very important turn step in human history. So Christ comes and a new covenant was made. This one was a bit different. Did you know that there is no mention of going to heaven or hell in the old testament before Christ?(do not argue those verses in Psalms or Songs or wherever where it says "God is merciful and will let me live forever", there's a lot more going with those verses) Because Isreal has grown into a child(stages of life) and Jesus needed to tweak some things so that the group would be kind to itself thus making it stronger. So the afterlife came to be(again, not insinuating afterlife exists or not.) For the first time in Jewish history, the objective of life was not to ONLY look out for oneself, but instead to look out for the group(love your neighbor as yourself) and the reward would be the afterlife. This was pretty much the start of socialism at least in Isreal. As you can imagine, Jesus(along with pretty much all the prophets) had a rough time trying to get over that whole ego thing that normal people have. Now even though that he knew about this theorem(in his understanding) which is pretty much a mathematical proof of survival of the fittest, people still wouldn't exactly accept logic(kids am I right?), so he says, "You should do it, because God said so." 500 years later, Mohammed showed up with some other descendants of Abraham and Islam started (I don't about Islam, but I'm sure its similar human development.) So now us guys through whatever deity told humanity what to do(think of others, care about people) and let humanity grow up a little bit. So the dark ages came around the corner started the teenage rebellion of humanity. Logic and reason just went out the window and the Eastern World's humanity just kept on fighting and killing in the name of their deity. So finally came the desperately needed Renasaince Era where ideas and creativity finally took flight. Reason and logic finally came to fruition. Humanity finally was able to grow up a little into a young adult trying to find its way in life(which is today). We have finally realized that it is our ego that is our undoing. We focus so much on war and conflict, holding grudges, getting revenge, defending our ego that we forget to see the ultimate truth. WE ARE ALL HUMAN. Globalization with reason and logic has finally brought out the concept that we should help each other. Every prophet, inventor, author, or any other person in an influential profession that has known this theorem speaks with the same intent of peace. It is humanity's ego that always distorts that intent. ITS NOT THE PROPHET'S FAULT THAT PEOPLE ARE OBSTINATE AND EGOTISTICAL. In all my life I could never understand why people were so irrational. Until now. I am different. I was given a burden that I don't know how to carry or even want to for that matter. We need to evolve into being better. In this day and age, people should accept mathematics as absolute truth. When do we finally deny our ego and come together as one species on this planet? A new covenant will be made. If there is one thing that humanity will always need, it's religion. So whether you believe I'm getting my morality from God(or any perspective deity), or I'm just simply getting it from myself(I do have a separate argument of why I believe God exists), I will still need to lead people into this new age morality. I have proof that I'm right about morality. I have displayed that truth. IT IS UNDEBATABLE. That doesn't mean it can't be literally debated, that just simply means that it can't be wrong. ITS MATH. That being said this whole thing is conjecture from that point, in which I will admit I don't have everything figured out(even though I believe God exists, he wants humanity to save itself. We are a young adult that's doing a great job trashing our house. We need to clean it up, not ask Dad to do it.) Please understand that I will always reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new evidence or information based on reason and logic. This is simply my succinct birdseye of humanity. To summarize, all religion is true, the same type of deity/deities throughout them all, and we need to GROW UP to be actual adults. Listen, I'm not going to be that prophet that lies to you because you're children. You guys should be old enough to be able to hear the truth. Also just because its better to help someone than to forsake him/her, doesn't mean that you can't have fun in your life. If your fun is being a jerk to someone then you are wrong. Now Greythoughts, this is my olive branch, so you get to know what my intention is. I'm going to use this truth as a way to influence people into helping and loving each other the way they already should. I know it's crazy, but what am I suppose to do, be selfish and let humanity just kill itself? I'm not going to do that. Maybe you don't have to disagree anymore with some things now. Maybe we are actually on the same side of morality. I don't care about winning. Thanks for the honest answers.
The objectivity of morality stems from the question, why is your selfishness more important than mine? Now you can create any argument for why you think you deserve things, but I can do the same. So what's after that? Well in today's society we determine our justification by forming groups of like minded individuals.
The most successful group determines what the government enforces upon its people. Now there are smart people like me that can take advantage of that situation especially in a republic. Tell people what they want to hear, get their vote, and then do whatever is best just for themselves once they are in that position of power. Most politicians will treat themselves first. They lie. The people on the right wing are always being lied to because of sociopaths. Tell me, how can you ever make progress if the information is false? WHEN IS IT RIGHT TO STOP THE LIE? I will start a debate that questions Christianity following the Christ and outlining why they couldn't follow. The constant morality of the right wing is completely based on being Christian. I'm going to be stripping that away from them. Keep in mind that the left wing and socialist movement may have the intent of what's best for humanity, but they act on their own bias thus constantly themselves making wrong decisions.
I tell you all of this because scientists have already identified this dire situation that is coming. The biggest problem is climate change(no longer the immediate problem, ill explain). We are warming up this planet quite nicely beginning the melting of the ice in the poles. It will cause a lot of flooding and a lot of people are going to die because of that. Now the US, being its arrogant usual self(I can objectify that argument of arrogance), is not going to do anything to try to prevent mostly because half the country deny's that it exists. Why is that? Because the leaders that lose power by not doing things to save this planet use God to bring people together and say it's not real. And so ignorance is created. Because those people will always follow the rich influential man if he says, "Believe in Jesus, he'll show you the way," and not even try to understand the Christ in what he actually says, it creates a false bias that more reasonable people can't overcome. I understand that "primitive superstition" view, but I think you have lost sight of your own bias and i mean that in regards to what my bias actually is. I will always have a perspective giving me information that normal people don't have access to. Now that implies that people can never know the fullest truth like I can. However like I said in comments, we will always act upon what we know and don't know, those people still will act. Religion is still a necessary tool for humanity because of people that can't see the universe we can. We can't just simply override their opinion and leave them in the past. And honestly, I don't think we should.
This world is populating at a increasingly rate. We are destroying farmland by using chemicals to expedite the growth of wheat and corn. It will come to pass that we are no longer able to grow food on thousands of square miles of land. People aren't going to stop needing to feed because the food is going away.
We need to start taking actions on multiple fronts, both science and morality. The progression of science is still diminished because of this moral civil war of the United States and I'm sure other countries as well. Most people's moral code is based on a lie or misunderstanding. That is how it became subjective.
Listen, we are destroying this planet faster than we can figure out how to save it. Since it's essentially morality that inhibits the development of reason and logic which is needed for those scientific advancements, then my logic is to correct morality. There are other smart people that continue to make scientific advancements, but I might be the only one in the world that can make moral advancements. The very cool thing is that most of my work is already done. Jesus Christ had the exact same mind and created his moral code based on it. I'm mostly using his words to what say we should do(in perspective of this day of age of course). I'll explain later on the moral issues that's not covered in the bible. I will be creating a new covenant though.
I honestly want you know that I understand all of the power implications with all of this. My only statement to prove my wisdom is, "We as humanity will always seek power to use, but can easily be ignorant of when we should use power." Everyone will have to decide for themselves what my intentions are. I have given a proof that dictates my intention. It is up to you whether to decide that I'm being true to it or not.
I am a white male born in the United States in the America as one of the 7 billion people on the Earth. I have a condition that inflicts only a very small percentage of the population. The biggest moral conflict is brought by the general population of Christians in the US. What are the chances that I share physical attributes of the only type of person they can respond to to change their ways? What if I was born in a different country with the same knowledge? Do you think they would have listen to a foreigner speaking against their whole meaning of life? There does come a time where coincidence is too unlikely. Do not discount one form of entity pulling the strings, nurturing humanity throughout history eventually giving them the responsibility to take care of themselves like a parent to a child(the objective of religion). This theorem is actually the Atheists God. If you deny religion, then logic and reason is your only deity. This theorem is made up of logic and reason. And I have always proven that. The only way to take care of ourselves is to first solve our internal conflict. I know this personally all too well.
I don't want to be like this. I don't want to see anymore. What am I supposed to do after discovering a theorem that can't be proven wrong that inherently forces a person like me to do something? Do i just simply accept being immoral? There is no difference for me if I let someone die or I kill them myself. My action/inaction has lead to a person dying. The deaths will always be on my conscience. This doesn't apply to normal people and because of it, they can never understand my agony. I know that I shouldn't be alive now because the weight of this responsibility is too crushing for anyone to bear. Please understand that I'm not trying to get people to be perfect in everything that they do even though my theorem pretty much says that everything you do matters. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do things that lead to humanity's survival such as furthering science and technology. If you are already doing things to further humanity's existence then you are in fact naturally following this theorem and you don't need that aspect of morality in your life. One can be condescending to people to make a point that changes a person's actions to follow this theorem. But one is wrong to be condescending just to boost one's ego.
"I do hope that we don't get wiped out....."
I'm not going to hope anymore, I'm going to try my hardest to prevent it. This isn't a judgment. This is a choice that I'm making. But as always, we will always act upon what we know and don't know. Now I'm going to take care of those fools who did exactly what I predicted because I told you my last argument. Please don't be blind in saying that morality doesn't impede on human development.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by XDM 1 month ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: While I personally do believe in an objective mortality, that is, that I believe that there are right and wrong answers relating to actions and situations, I do not believe that the theorem proposed by Pro is admissible in a formal debate for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to,the use of fallacy in his reasoning. Con did not really convince me either so I left the "after" point tied. Pro was also far less composed and had atrocious grammar errors which merit Con points based on the criteria of this debate. Neither used any sources and thus that point is tied.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.