The Instigator
Cold-Mind
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
aLaPasta
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Omnibenevolence is meaningless

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Cold-Mind
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 56609
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Cold-Mind

Pro

Omnibenevolent: All-loving and infinitely good.
Resolution: To be omnibenevolent means not to care about anything.
No arguments in the first round.

Voting rules:
- Who had more reliable sources will not be taken into account.
- Forfeit in round 2 is loss.
aLaPasta

Con

I accept the challenge. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Cold-Mind

Pro

1) Since one action can be considered good by one person and bad by another person. And every particular action can be considered bad by some person, in order to be infinitely good, being would be unable to do anything.

2) If A loves something he will try to protect it. If A loves something, he will try to help it. If B is always trying to eat C, A's love can't be manifested for both B and C.
aLaPasta

Con

aLaPasta forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cold-Mind

Pro

By the rules I stated in round 1 I won this debate. Thanks for voting.
aLaPasta

Con

aLaPasta forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Amoranemix 2 years ago
Amoranemix
The desire being unimpaired means two things
- It is the top priority, the main goal/intent/objective/target/purpose.
- Any other desires may, from the POV of the omnibenevolent being, not in the way of achieving that goal, which in practice means they are not acted upon.

So someone omnibenevolent may love raping children and hate giving money to the poor, but do the latter and not the former because is is the right thing to do.

Behaviour is not only determined by benevolence, but also by circumstances, knowledge, intelligence and abilities/power. So the description of your scenario is too sketchy to say what C will do.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
I don't understand what it means for desire to be unimpaired.
If both A and B are in "exterior world" and what is good for A is bad for B, and what is good for B is bad for A.
How will C's desire to maximize well-being of exterior world be manifested?
Posted by Amoranemix 2 years ago
Amoranemix
The Wikipedia definition is vague. What is all-loving ? However, vague does not imply meaningless, but it implies the meaning is not clear. I fancy the following definition better, as it allows for evaluating whether God is omnibenevolent :

omnibenevolence : the unimpaired desire to maximize the well-being of the exterior world.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
It is not mine. It is from wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org...
Posted by Amoranemix 2 years ago
Amoranemix
Although I think your definition for omnibenevolence is bad, I think it is still possible to make something of it such that omnibenevolence is not meaningless.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Cold-MindaLaPasta
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Cold-MindaLaPasta
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Cold-MindaLaPasta
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con's pasta must have bee over cooked as he/she forfeited, leaving the debate to Pro.