Origin of Government
This debate will focus on the theories of the origin if government.
The theories are:
I. Government originates in the right of the father to govern his child.
II. It originates in convention, and is a social compact.
III. It originates in the people, who, collectively taken, are sovereign.
IV. Government springs from the spontaneous development of nature.
V. It derives its right from the immediate and express appointment of God
VI. From God through the Pope, or a visible head of the spiritual society
VII. From God through the people
VIII. From God through the natural law
My opponent may use any of these theories, or a combination of them. My opponent must argue why the theories he/she has chosen best explains the origin and purpose of a government.
I will combine theories I, VII, and VIII. Thesis: I argue that the origin of government is only possible through the existence of a Moral Lawgiver. The purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner, as we are designed to belong in a community.
I would like for an a opponent that is against any theory that necessitates God for the origin of government, but anyone is welcome, so long as their combination of theories contradicts mine.
This will heavily be a philosophical debate, so general inductions/deductions will be the main part of the arguments. However, citing sources for studies on societies and appealing to historical law documents are encouraged to help strengthen the arguments.
Round 1- Acceptance and stating the theory/theories, while combining them into a thesis.
Round 2- Argue why your thesis is correct. No rebuttals.
Round 3 and 4- Defend your thesis and attack the opponent's thesis.
Round 5- Concluding statements of the debate. AT THE END OF THIS ROUND, each person MUST reflect on the entirety of this discussion, and in a paragraph, given their view on the origin of government, will explain which type of government they think is best: aristocracy, democracy, monarchy, republic, or some mixed form. Once concluded, my opponent may wish to further the discussion by setting up another debate with me in regards to the best form of government.
I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking debate with clever arguments, very long responses, and relevant sources. If you do not have the time or stamina for this debate, do not accept.
Thank you. I welcome anyone to take down my thesis.
Thank you Lupricona (Pro) for bringing an important subject to the debating floor. I (Con) is looking forward in a learning experience from a constructive debate.
Con will take “theory” IV. “Government springs from the spontaneous development of nature.” This theory is the closes to my thesis based on evolution, which presents a slow and conservative development, via the physical Laws of Nature, therefore, not a “spontaneous development.”
Thesis: I argue that the origin of most governments exist on a Moral Order. The purpose of government is to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government; no more, no less.
Thank you, Mike_10-4, for joining me in this conversation, as it's much easier to have one with another person.
The origin of government is only possible through the existence of a Moral Lawgiver. The purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner, as we are designed to belong in a community. Morality is known through divine and natural law, with natural law being discovered through reason, and divine through revelation. Through these two principles, governments were started by a patriarchal system, with the patriarch obeying the moral code.
Is civilization the cause of moral standards, or does morality cause a civilization?
Before we can discover the origin of government, we have to look at the current world, and then extrapolate what most likely occurred in the past. I will examine intentionality, and the purpose of both justice and equality.
Argument 1- Intentionality
Before I begin discussing society and laws, I first need to establish that objective moral values exist, and they necessitate the existence of a transcendent agent.
There are two major worldviews, theism and atheism, which both make assumptions about the beginning of the universe. The theistic line of thought supports the notion that a transcendent being created our universe, while the atheistic line of thought supports the notion of no transcendent being creating the universe.
Intentionality requires a moral agent. According the the law of causality, every cause can only produce certain effects. Intention only can produce intention, and non-intentionality can only produce non-intentionality. Therefore, non-intentionality can never cause an intention.
In the atheistic paradigm, the only logical consequence is amorality, or moral relativism. The theistic paradigm supports an objective moral system, as the universe was created with intention.
If the creation of the universe was non-intentional, humans would be unable to produce intentions. Since moral agents (humans) can recognize intention, it is impossible for the universe to have been caused without some intentional moral agent.
As a Moral Lawgiver must exist, then an objective moral system also exists by necessity. This is true because, if the universe was created with a purpose, then there exists a standard in which to live by, i.e. a moral standard. Included in this system are natural laws that are understood by human reason, and divine laws that are revealed to people by the Lawgiver.
Premise 1: Intentionality necessitates a Moral Lawgiver.
Premise 2: Intentionality exists.
Therefore, A Moral Lawgiver exists.
Argument 2- Equality and Justice
Premise 1: A sense of justice is required for understanding the different roles within society.
Premise 2: Every government, including the first, contains different roles for the people within a society.
Therefore, justice causes a government, and the reverse is impossible.
Social and Historical Sciences
By looking at the social and historical sciences, we can come to an understanding of how humans have interacted in the past, and compare that with the current knowledge of human sociology. By combining these two sciences, we can deduce the probable origin of government.
Argument 3- Social Science
Given the point in time that we are, we have vast amounts of societies and governments to look at in history. Throughout all of the time and space, there have been many barbarous tribes that have existed. However, those barbarous tribes were unprogressive. Time went on, yet they maintained their uncivilized behavior. The behaviors only changed when a civilized group interacted with them, by means of missionaries, conquests, or colonies. However, we have never seen a barbaric tribe become civilized without some sort of outside agent. This would make sense if that the more ancient nations had a stronger sense of justice, and over time some peoples became isolated and degraded into a lesser state.
Premise 1: Isolated tribes maintain their state until an outside agent interacts.
Premise 2: Primeval nations started off with complex law codes.
Therefore, the first government formed required an outside agent.
Argument 4- Patriarchal Systems
The next argument deals with the historicity of the patriarchal system.
By looking at ancient law codes from Mesopotamia(1)(2) and Egypt(3), we find a male writing down the sacred laws for his nation. The laws require obedience, and punishment is established to maintain justice.
In three major religions of the world- Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the patriarch Job is understood as an historical character (4). Job was a shepherd king who performed religious sacrifices for his family. Another important figure was Melchizedek (5). He was a priestly king of ancient Jerusalem. Later on, one of his successors, Ebed-Tob, states to AMENOPHIS IV that “Neither my
At this point, we see a patriarchal system where the leader maintains authority over the divine and natural law. The king and the priest were one and the same. Over time, the authority was split, and the kings and priests took over the secular and religious laws, respectively.
Premise 1: The earliest governments were patriarchal systems.
Premise 2: It is probable that primeval actions reflect original standards.
Therefore, it is probable that the first government was a patriarchal system.
In order for a society to function well, the people forming it must have a sense of justice. Because of this, a society cannot create justice, it must exist beforehand. Once a government is established, it operates in order to maintain justice. The best governments are ones that maintain the highest level of justice as possible.
Forming a society does not cause moral standards- a sense of objective moral standards must exist before any type of government can be produced.
Premise 1: A Moral Lawgiver exists.
Premise 2: Justice causes a government, and the reverse is impossible.
Premise 3: The first government was probably a patriarchal system.
Premise 4: The first government formed required an outside agent.
In the beginning, a Moral Lawgiver set up humanity with the tools to formulate a patriarchal government, which would construct just laws as instructed by natural law.
I look forward to hearing Con's philosophy of government.
Thesis: Most governments exist on a Moral Order. The purpose of government is to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government; no more, no less.
Morality is an outgrowth from life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics; part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made.
Shortly after the Big Bang the Laws of Thermodynamics started the evolution of the universe. The First Law of thermodynamics, which gives a relationship between changes in energy, volume, temperature, and pressure for expansion. Symbolically, the law can be stated as: dE + PdV = TdS, where the symbols of said equation are found in the following link:
The Second Law of thermodynamics, in part, governs the direction of flow. That is, flow moves from high to low temperatures, flow moves from high to low pressures, the flow from high to low resistance for electrons; throughout nature, symmetries are found in: the flow from high to low elevation for water, the flow of life taking a path from high to low resistance in the pursuit for food, etc.
The Constructal Law states: Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it.
The Constructal Law governs evolution in physics, biology, technology, and social organizations. This Law explains how everything that moves--whether animate or inanimate--naturally evolve in ways that facilitate such movement in the study of flow dynamics. Flow analysis is rich in “scientific models” in many fields when studying the motion and currents of flow relative to resistance.
Flow at the biological level, is a manifestation of life's primitive working function or bio-program which maintains, once alive, “Life” must have the freedom (“Liberty”) of flow or movement, in “the pursuit (energy to overcome resistance) of ” survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback the mechanism of adaptation, procreation, “Happiness” for us humans, etc. Hence, Thomas Jefferson's celebrated polished version of this bio-program, which he labeled Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Life's Unalienable Rights is a dynamic interface with nature or a bio-program, where all “Life” has a craving to sustain, improve and prolong itself, with the desire to increase freedom (“Liberty”), while decreasing the energy (taking the path of least resistance) in “the pursuit of ” an objective, and in the process, exploring new levels of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans). This bio-program is the foundation for the “Natural Selection” process; the machinery of evolution for life, social systems, technology, free-markets, etc.
The mutual interaction of Unalienable Rights give rise to a moral order and is found throughout many species. For example, the subtle nonverbal communication between a parent and infant is miraculous, and it flows through life's Unalienable Rights in harmonious inter-species symmetry. This symmetry is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life. In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is wrong--such as hunger triggered by the genetically programmed need to pursue food. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant's desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally invites the sharing of Happiness. The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right and wrong, the primitives of Morality.
The Absolute Values of morality is Right (moral, positive-feedback, “Happiness”) or Wrong (immoral, negative-feedback, unhappiness). The objective of morality is doing Right keeping a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) of the members within the group. Goodwill is a Conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive-feedback. Over time, group-wide positive-feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms, going with the social flow minimizing civil resistance. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.
The empirical evidence of the diversity of language, beliefs, and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the universal absolute moral thread that runs through the tapestry of humanity in the evolution of civil societies. In addition, mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, etc, many groups having some form of “pecking order” forming social hierarchies. Also, such positive-feedback in group formation is found in inter-species relationships, such as those between humans and their pets. Therefore, all groups are governed by morality; otherwise, immorality becomes the group's demise.
Relative to tribes of humans, throughout the ages, maintains a rich spectrum of governance evolution blossoming from social hierarchies, often in bloody trial and error, in search of a road to utopia.
Perhaps, a road was found when Unalienable Rights became the foundation to governance. In the case of the US Constitutional design, based on Unalienable Rights, sparked a social experiment within a short period of 200-years, changed the world like no other society in recorded history, through the evolutionary fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow, having minimal resistance, within the awesome machinery of nature.
Conclusion: It all started at the beginning of time, Governed by the fixed matrix of the Laws of Nature, creating patterns of hierarchical symmetries from the morphing of flow systems (inanimate and animate) seeking the path of least resistance, evolving to the experience of positive-feedback throughout life, eventually forming social systems; hence, the “Origin of Government.”
Thank you, Con, for your arguments.
Physical vs. Metaphysical
My opponent argues that morality is a product ("outgrowth") of the laws of nature. My opponent is confusing metaphsyical principles with physical laws. (By physical, I mean both matter and energy, and by metaphysical, I mean anything that is besides matter and energy.) Mathematics is a language that humans have created in order for them to understand the physical universe. Every equation can be linked to the physical world. However, morality, even though it is also a concept that was created by humanity, is a principle that cannot be linked to the physical world. We can not measure love, or quantify the exact happiness of one person to the next. An important rule in causation is that every cause can only have certain effects. So, a physical effect requires a physical cause. The physical laws of nature cannot cause metaphysical laws of morality. My opponent most definitely shows a correlation, albeit a very loose correlation, but he does not prove that one affects the other. As my opponent's argument rests on the foundation of morality being an outcome of the physical laws, he must then show how a physical law can produce a metaphysical law. If he cannot do this, his entire thesis breaks down.
My opponent argues that the absolute value of right is happiness. But, what does he base this argument off of? Why should happiness be what dictates as the right thing to do? Many times, humans must make tough sacrifices in order to do the right thing, which would go agains their happiness. And, as this is the case, where would the first humans get the sense of needing to give up their happiness in order to do the "right" thing? My opponent's argument that happiness is on the spectrum of Right is a baseless and unproven assertion.
Origin of Language
My opponent states that as soon as two humans form a group, it becomes alive. But how did two humans ever manage to effectively learn to communicate with each other? Thought does not create language; rather, language is a tool for thought. If my opponent wants to argue that the first humans that communicated together eventually formed a government, he must explain how language could have originated. If he is unable to do this, his argument on the formation of government is unproven.
Unviversal Moral Thread
My opponent argues that empirical evidence shows a universal absolute moral thread that runs through the tapsetry of humanity in the evolution of civil societies. How does he determine which society is more civil than others? Are you arguing that the universal opinion of mankind defines what is morally correct? What if the Nazis had succeeded in their goals to exterminate the Jews, and eventually convinced everyone that it was the right thing to do? Would that have made it morally correct if everyone in the world agreed to it? This proposition of universal morals has major problems, unless the objective of morality lies above humankind.
My opponent has quite a few stumbling blocks in regards to proving his thesis, and I look forward to him improving his arguments. I wish him the best of luck. Cheers!
In Round 2 Pro stated, “There are two major worldviews, theism and atheism, which both make assumptions about the beginning of the universe.”
All theist believes God created the universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Nature. Therefore, the Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting.
Since Pro is a person of faith (theories VII and VIII) and for those of faith, including preachers and prophets, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all.
Relative to those man written scriptures, are the seeds to social norms. The machinery of social evolution maintains a convoluted relationship with such scriptures containing wisdom from tested norms, passed down through the generations from Antiquity through the Dark Ages. Those norms are the result from social positive-feedback throughout the flow of Unalienable Rights stemmed from morality to please the gods, in the evolution of belief systems found in all societies.
The fallout to please the gods, echoes through Pro's thesis in Round 2, “The origin of government is only possible through the existence of a Moral Lawgiver. The purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner, as we are designed to belong in a community. Morality is known through divine and natural law, with natural law being discovered through reason, and divine through revelation. Through these two principles, governments were started by a patriarchal system, with the patriarch obeying the moral code.”
Pro's position is more about the prerequisite for government being a society, “...we are designed to belong in a community.” Where a society is the manifestation of Morality in the evolution of social norms.
Con's position on the “Origin of Government” is one of evolution, where its foundational structure has hierarchical symmetry, represented by that common tree pattern found throughout nature (parent-child configurations). This structure is found in social “pecking order” configurations throughout many species on the tree of life. Government is a human defined term having the same hierarchical structure found throughout nature; for it is this structure that defines the “Origin of Government.”
Con's position maintains scientific backing from a recent discovery [Constructal Law], using “reason” in the analysis of flow, came forward a “revelation” in a common tree structure pattern found throughout nature, and it is this pattern responsible for the “Origin of Government.”
The norms of a society is a function of a Moral Order, does not guarantee its governance will rule in a moral way, as implied by Pro's thesis. Hence, the spectrum of governance from Left to Right. On the Left side we have an immoral government, using tyranny, to force some mastermind's dogma onto society (an Oligarchy). On the Right side we have a moral limited government to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights (a Constitutional Republic). A constitutional republic is instituted by the people in a social contract (http://plato.stanford.edu...), to preserve, defend, and conservatively nurture social norms, relative to the freedom of positive social flow, and protects those norms from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. The following video presentation highlights a constitutional republic (using the USA as an example) compared to the spectrum of governance along with a general overview of economics, an important part of government.
With this general overview on the spectrum of governance we could claim all of Pro's theories in Round 1 pertain mostly to the history of governance known to exist throughout humanity, in one form or another. For example: I-the family, II-social compact (Locke), III- the collective sovereign (Marx), IV-Con's favorite, evolution (the “Origin of Government”), V-appointment of God (Kings and Queens), VI-the Pope (government over the Catholic society) or spiritual society (ISIS, and other forms of theocracies), VII-God through the people (people are a way for nature to see and experience itself to live together and govern, a product of God's Laws of Nature), VIII-God through natural law (human's ability to use reason to analyze human nature, to build a government also, a product of God's Laws of Nature). All theories are manifestations of theory IV (the “Origin of Government”), for they all maintain a common hierarchical tree structure found in all forms of governance.
In Round 3 Pro referred to “Physical vs. Metaphysical.” The concept of “physical” is easy, dealing with the scientific method to decipher the Laws of Nature. On the other hand, Con takes issue with Pro from the standpoint that it is not easy to say what “metaphysical” is, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu...).
In summary, about the seventeenth century “metaphysics” began to be a catch-all category, a repository of philosophical problems that could not be otherwise classified: “not epistemology, not logic, not ethics, etc.” It was at about that time that the word “ontology” was invented--to be a name for the science of being as such, an office that the word ‘metaphysics’ could no longer fill. It would seem that “metaphysics” is some state of one's chaotic philosophy until the scientific method presents the incarnation of clarity.
Pro in Round 3 questioned the usage of the term “Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson used that term as a metaphor representing positive-feedback, after having the freedom and the pursuit of an accomplished objective. By no means does positive-feedback results always in happiness. For example, last year I had to put down my best Friend. My dog who been a member of the family for many years. He was suffering and so was the rest of the family suffering over his condition. By no means the pursuit of that objective yielded happiness, however, it was the right thing to do, the suffering is over, yielding positive-feedback.
Pro in Round 3 took issue with Con's position on the “origin of language.” Con stated in Round 2 the following:
Over time, group-wide positive-feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture.
According to a research article titled: “Culture trumps biology in language development” (http://articles.latimes.com...). In summary, the article states, "Culture trumps the innate structure of the human mind ... We need to take much more seriously the role of cultural factors in changing language diversity." How else can one account for the diversity of language throughout the ages and today, being none other, than a function of cultural development.
In Round 3 Pro took issue with Con on the “Universal Moral Thread.” Pro asked the question, “How does he determine which society is more civil than others?” Pro is confusing cultural norms with morality. Of course, there is a diversity of cultural norms across the human social spectrum. It is easy for one culture to claim to be “more civil than others.” However, the members within a culture, morally follows those cultural norms to preserve the culture. Hence, the “Universal Moral Thread” in all cultures.
Pro's thesis is based on man's written scriptures about God relative to “three major religions of the world--Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” but failed to address the existence of government before and during Antiquity.
Pro criticized “barbarous tribes” where all tribes (aka ISIS for example) have some form of governance. The title of this debate is the “Origin of Government,” not when government became civil. Therefore, Pro's theories VII and VIII implies an uncivil God.
Con states that "the Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting."
I completely agree with this.
Con also states: "man is fallible, and those who study or wite such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants"
I also agree with this. There are many books that were collected into the canon of what is now known as the Bible. Clearly, there are some minor errors in the Bible, but this does not show that the entirety of the texts are not historically accurate. However, the extent to which the Bible is accurate is mostly irrelevant to this particular debate.
Con argues that the origin of government is one of evolution, and it matches the foundational structure of hierachical symmetry. Again, Con is correlating the physical- the hierarchical symmetry of nature, and the metaphysical- a moral framework for human government. But my opponent does not show how the physical can cause the non-physical.
Con argues that I cannot say what is meant by "metaphysical." However, it is quite simple. Allow me to give a demonstration: "owh aer ouy?" I used letters (matter) and assembled them into a form, but it should not mean anything to anyone. Now, using the same letters (matter), I will arrange them differently: "how are you?" Information is metaphysical, because it is neither matter or energy. Rather, information uses matter to convey a message. A moral system, or a moral philosophy, is a system derived from information, which goes beyond matter and energy. So, my opponent still needs to prove that because matter acts in a certain way, it should also mean that information must act in a similar fashion. I argue this is a non-sequitor. Matter and information are two separate things.
My opponent agrees that the term "happiness" may require certain aspects in a moral system, like sacrifice. I question how my opponent justifies the moral necessity of sacrifice in his system.
My opponent argues that langauge developed because of culture. However, a culture requires language to begin with. This is a chicken and egg scenario. You can't have one without the other, so how does it originate? He has not adequately explained this.
My opponent states that the "Universal Moral Thread" is something that follows each culture. So, it seems that he is saying that there is no objective right or wrong. So, if one culture determines that it is morally correct to murder people, who or what is correct in saying that they are absolutely wrong?
Con criticizes my barbarous tribes argument, but he seems to misunderstand it. I am arguing that, since we have never seen a barbarous tribe become civil on it's own, it is then likely to conclude it would have been impossible for the first human society to have become civil all on it's own.
Pro “completely agrees” with Con that the Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God.
Knowing the physical Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God, Pro is still having problems with “metaphysics.” Pro stated, “Information is metaphysical, because it is neither matter or energy.” DNA is full of information in a long sequence chain representing many combinations of four molecules or nucleotide, where these molecules are simply matter from the elements found in the Periodic Table. Therefore, information is represented in matter, otherwise, we will not be here. It takes matter and energy to generate and transmit information. Therefore, information is a manifestation of matter and energy, there is nothing “metaphysical” about it!
Now that we have “metaphysical” cleared up again, Con could address Pro's following statement, “... Con is correlating the physical- the hierarchical symmetry of nature, and the metaphysical- a moral framework for human government. But my opponent does not show how the physical can cause the non-physical.”
Relative to life having a brain, exchanging information from a bird's chirp, to a dog's bark, to a human on debate.org; the brain is “matter,” where the neurons pass information via electrical “energy.” Information between the mutual positive-feedback interactions of life's Unalienable Rights give rise to a moral order, or some Universal Moral Thread, found throughout many species responsible for the formation of a physical group.
For example, again, the subtle nonverbal communication between a parent and infant is miraculous, and it flows through life's Unalienable Rights in harmonious inter-species symmetry. This symmetry is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the physical feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life. In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is physically wrong--such as hunger triggered by the genetically programmed need to pursue food, aka energy. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to physically seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant's desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the physical sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally invites the sharing of Happiness (physical positive-feedback). The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right and wrong, the primitives of Morality.
Morality is simply an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics; part of the physical Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God, and therefore, NOT “metaphysical.” Hence, “the physical can cause the non-physical.”
As for Pro's belief in “... a moral framework for human government,” is far from reality. There is no “moral framework” in an immoral tyrannical government! The genesis of cultural norms is a function of morality, generating mutual positive-feedback via life's Unalienable Rights throughout a social group. Theoretically, a moral government will embrace and protect those cultural norms. The US Constitution came close to such a theoretical moral government, over time, that event became history. Today, the US follows the progressive liberal “living constitution,” where anything goes to benefit the ruling-class oligarch.
Pro is still confused about the term “happiness” being a metaphor of positive-feedback. Pro's question “how my opponent justifies the moral necessity of sacrifice in his system?” In Round 3, Con tried to make it clear to Pro by the example of “sacrificing” the life of Con's dog as a moral necessity, and in time, generated positive-feedback.
Pro is having a problem with language being a function of culture. Pro's argument is “... a culture requires language to begin with. This is a chicken and egg scenario.” If all cultures requires a language to begin with, logic dictates all cultures will have the same language.
Perhaps, Pro could enlighten Con why many cultures do not have the same language?
Pro is still having problems understanding the difference between cultural norms and the “Universal Moral Thread.” Con will try to give another example. Pro questioned, “If one culture determines that it is morally correct to murder people, who or what is correct in saying that they are absolutely wrong?” Let's take the immoral US government for example. The US government one day decreed that it is morally correct to murder people, aka abortion. Abortion went against Pro's norms. Norms that were programed via Pro's religious and family upbringing. Pro continues to morally follow Pro's norms and refuse to follow the government's tyrannical dictate, who maintains that it is morally correct to murder people.
You show me a righteous culture; there is a good chance that culture is at war.
Pro stated, “I [Pro] am arguing that, since we have never seen a barbarous tribe become civil on it's own, it is then likely to conclude it would have been impossible for the first human society to have become civil all on it's own.”
“Barbarous” and “civil” are relative terms. However, we do know cultures do exist, therefore, the “first human society,” over many generations, formed a culture. Now to determine if that culture is “barbarous” or “civil,” requires a second culture.
Now let's switch gears and examine Pro's thesis, by analyzing each sentence: “The origin of government is only possible through the existence of a Moral Lawgiver. The purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner, as we are designed to belong in a community. Morality is known through divine and natural law, with natural law being discovered through reason, and divine through revelation. Through these two principles, governments were started by a patriarchal system, with the patriarch obeying the moral code.”
A “Moral Lawgiver” can be perceived as a God, the creator of the universe, where the Laws of Nature is the handwriting of God.
“The purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner, as we are designed to belong in a community.” That would be nice, however, most governments are tyrannical. Where many governments don't like each other; hence, the perpetual flux of wars resulting in human carnage throughout the ages.
“Morality is known through divine and natural law, with natural law being discovered through reason, and divine through revelation.” Morality is part of the physical Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God. The scientific method deciphers God's handwriting; hence, “revelation.”
“Through these two principles, governments were started by a patriarchal system, with the patriarch obeying the moral code.” “Patriarch” refers to the male head of a family. There we have it, the “family,” that familiar correlating physical hierarchical pattern found throughout nature. As for a “moral code,” the term “code” is the same as cultural norms, where a “code” or norms are the result of that Universal Moral Thread, part of the physical Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God.
It would seem that Pro is more aligned with Con relative to the handwriting of God, the physical Laws of Nature being the “Origin of Government” through evolution (aka theory IV). As human evolution continues, perhaps, one day humanity may achieve that “purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner,” throughout the world, without any wars.
As the scientific method continues in the “revelation” of God's handwriting, often causes stress for those philosophies consumed in “metaphysical” myth. It is understandable for one having problems in seeing the simplicity of the “Origin of Government,” based on a simple physical hierarchical pattern found throughout nature, as this pattern is in all governance, both moral and immoral. In addition, this hierarchical pattern is found in trees, river basins, lightning bolts, in the human body as oxygen-rich blood flowing through the aorta, which then branches into arteries and capillaries, thereby reaching every section of the body as effectively as possible, etc. This hierarchical pattern is found in social organizational configurations from the family to clubs to corporations to governments. Therefore, this simple common pattern is the “Origin of Government.” As Albert Einstein once said, “When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
Con: "information is represented in matter, otherwise, we will not be here. It takes matter and energy to generate and transmit information. Therefore, information is a manifestation of matter and energy, there is nothing “metaphysical” about it!"
This is completely wrong. Information is not a manifestation of matter and energy. Information can use matter or energy to convey a message. But, suppose we were in a different universe, where matter and energy were non-existent, but some other physical forms existed. The ways that those forms were arranged could be used to convey information. This is why information is beyond matter and energy, because it uses them, but does not require them. Therefore, information is metaphysical.
Because my opponent completely misunderstood my metaphysical argument, the rest of his argument is fundamentally flawed. He attempts to say that physical laws cause moral guidelines, which goes against the law of causality.
Con gave an example of sacrificing as a moral necessity, but that is still only a subjective opinion. Others would not agree the sacrifice is good. This can't be justified to an objective level.
Con stated, "if all cultures requires a language to begin with, logic dictates all cultures will have the same language." This argument is demonstrably false. Languages change over time. One group of people could start with the same language, and over many generations and with people moving to separate parts of the world, the language would eventually change into different types.
Con showed that different cultures will have different views on morals, like with abortion, but he still hasn't really shown the difference between that and what the universal moral thread is.
Barbarous and civil are only relative terms if one does not agree that there is an objective moral standard with which society should be based off of. My argument is that, how did that first society learn to become civil all on their own? We do not see societies nowadays becoming more civil unless there is an external influence. Therefore, there must have been an external influence with the first society.
Following the rules of this debate, Round 5 “Concluding statements ... with an opinion on the best form of government.”
In Round 1 Con took the evolutionary approach by selecting “theory IV,” with emphasis on a slow and conservative development, via the physical Laws of Nature.
In our modern age, the scientific method became inseparable from human endeavor, where many of faith feel threaten. On the contrary, both those of faith and seculars should unite around the scientific method. Those of faith should view the Laws of Nature as the handwriting of God, where seculars view those laws, simply being the Laws of Nature.
And in saying that, it is through the Laws of Nature, or God's handwriting, we come to realize the “Origin of Government” blossoms from a recurring pattern found throughout nature governed by the Constructal Law. This pattern is tree shaped and commonly known as a hierarchy.
“In regards to the best form of government,” that would be a limited constitutional republic institution of governance morally embracing and protects the individual's Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. This rare form of government historically and empirically is the most efficient in the fruits of, economics, technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of nature.
Too bad a limited constitutional republic is not a stable form of governance as it eventually morphs into a tyrannical oligarch due to the morality factor. For example, John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once stated:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...).
On that note, from the wisdom of John Adams, let me (Con) take this occasion, to express the vital importance of education on that Universal Moral Thread, not to be confused with cultural norms or some “code.” But a Moral Thread that is part of the physical Laws of Nature. A subtle Thread found throughout the mutual positive-feedback relative to life's Unalienable Rights going with the flow, minimizing resistance, in beneficial configurations throughout the living spectrum from schools of fish, to flocks of birds, to packs of wolfs, to tribes of humans, etc. Preserving those configurations, while advancing and improving the group, aka, that ever ending road to utopia. On the other hand, who could argue, perhaps, a flock of doves may have found their utopia, while most humans are confused over morality trapped in “metaphysics” with dialectic spin.
In closing, Con wishes Pro a long and healthy “Live,” with ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the Moral “pursuit of Happiness.”
|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||0|
|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||3|