Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1: Acceptance and definitions.
Round 2: Opening arguments.
Round 3: Refutations.
Round 4: Defenses.
Round 5: Closing arguments.
I am not planning on being too strict with this, but I do hope for a debate that is decently structured. However, deviation will not be too much of a problem, as long as it is done with the best of intentions.
I think that polyamory is not morally wrong.
Polyamory: Having more than one significant other.
So polyamory is morally wrong as it is a combination of lust and avarice.
Lust is committed where polyamory is concerned, as nobody would want another partner...except for sexual purposes. Think this way: you have a wife who loves you and you love her back. Your connections are great and everything and communications between you guys are smooth (otherwise, you would have already broke up)- why would you want another partner unless your penis itches for someone else?
Avarice is committed during polyamory as without greed; without the want and lust for more and more sexual partners so that you can have different asses to stick your dick into, polyamory would not be committed. Nobody would want another wife if avarice was not enough, if one wife cannot sexually satisfy a man. But it all boils down to one question doesn't it? That is: how many wives would it take for a man to start being greedy? Well, again, because without religion, such a thing as morality wouldn't exist, I shall refer to the Bible which says: But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Notice that they did not say: "...each man should have his own wives"..." but rather "...each man should had his own wife". So ONE is the answer. And lo and behold for the Bible too agrees with my point about lust. For the verse said that it is because of the temptation to committing sexual immorality that one should have only one partner...that means if a man marries another wife, he would be tempted to commit sexual IMMORALITY and you tell me- now that we know that one of the reasons that one commits polyamory is because of lust- why wouldn't the person have sex with his second significant other??? He would!
Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, as lust and greed (or avarice) is morally wrong, polyamory is morally wrong, for it is a combination of the two. With the word 'checkmate', as I am not sure you would be able to defend your case, I'd like to end my argument. Thank you for your time.
P1: My opposing definition of morality, and critique of using Christianity as a basis for morality
While my opponent did we to capitalize on my mistake of not defining morality, he chose a rather poor definition, and I would like to suggest a better alternative. As such, I believe that the definition of 'virtuous conduct' (thefreedictionary.com) will be the most elegant and pertinent to the debate, as it both allows my opponent to continue using bible as his evidence, and allows both of us to make full use of all sources.
I do this, primarily, because I believe that the bible is a poor choice of document used to define morality. My opponents insistence that morality doesn't exist without religion has been debated much, but the fact remains that atheists, despite not having a religion, have morality. In fact, by saying that without religion, there would be no morality directly implies my opponent, without his religion, would also have no moral code or morality. Obviously, in a debate of morality, saying that you have no morality without a specific book is worrying, as it calls into question my opponents ability to correctly and aptly judge morality. I will not delve much deeper into what this says about my opponent, however, as I do not want to strawman him, and would like him to correct my misconceptions, as I am sure that I am misinterpreting something.
As well as there being other religious texts and other religious morals outside the bible, there are also non-religious morals that directly disprove my opponents definition of morality as only existing in not only religion, but his religion. Furthermore, my opponents choice of the seven sins is rather poor, as there are several lists of seven deadly sins, or abominations, in the bible. One such list, coming from Proverb 6:16-19 is as follows.
1. A proud look
2. A lying tongue
3. Hands that shed innocent blood
4. A heart that devises wicked plots
5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief
6. A deceitful witness that uttereth lies
7. Him that soweth discord among brethren
Which, unless I am mistaken, none of these deadly sins, which are also in the bible, would cover all instances of polyamory.
P2: Polyamory is not necessarily lustful
This point will be quick, merely pointing out that, by nature, nothing about polyamory is specifically lustful. One may enter a polyamorous relationship merely for romantic involvement and, even if it is for lust, it is not necessarily more so than that of a monoamorous person. But, the possibility of, say, an asexual -- with no lust -- entering into a polyamorous relationship disproves my opponents thoughts that polyamory is, inherently, lustful.
P3: Polyamory is not necessarily avaricious
Firstly, I should note that in your definiton of avarice, you mention that polyamory, in some fashion, exists to 'have different asses to stick your dick into'. I would like to point out that polyamorous females exist.
I have pointed out why the bible makes for a ppoor definition point, and avarice is only inherently bad according to biblical standards. However, even if we use biblical standards, polyamory is not inherently avarice. Polyamory, as I have already stated, need not be lustful. But, as well, polyamory need not be done with the intent of greed. Again, an asexual may end up in a polyamorous relationship. Not only that, but he or she may have done so merely to please his or her two suitors, and because he or she wouldn't want to have to hurt one of their feelings (I'm not turning this into an emotional debate, merely proposing a theoretical). Is this avarice, if he or she is not in a polyamorous relationship for themselves, but for others? To me, it sounds more like altruism, or at least attempted altruism.
P4: Without biblical text, there is no harm in being lustful or avaricious anyway
In order for your biblical argument to be sound, you must also prove why it is moral, as I have already stated. It relies on the premises that:
1. There is a (Christian) God.
2. God cares about our morality.
3. That either lust or avarice are immoral in His eyes.
4. All polyamorous relationships are either lustful or avaricious.
Conclusion: With or without biblical sources (which shouldn't be used), polyamory is not inherently immoral
My opponent must prove how, non-religiously, polyamory is morally wrong in all instances.
Anyway, let's not dwell on that.
1. Imagine a block of ice water which you just took out of a fridge. Put it under the sun for a while and it melts into liquid water. Now, has the water changed? Physically, yes. But not chemically: it is still water.
Likewise, atheists (the liquid) are what melted from their religious ancestors (the ice)- though they don't believe in what their ancestors did, the morals (the water) were inevitably passed down. So it is a fact: though atheists don't keep the religion, they still keep the morals which were passed down. No matter how you disbelieve in God, you still have the morals drawn from your parent's/grandparent's/great grandparent's/great great grandparents or beyond that's religion.
There was no other possible method that morals came in except through religion. A leader could make orders for his people but that would be called 'laws'- it was forced into them- morals however, are inside a person and are practiced through the will of the person.
2. Screw your point about polyamory is not necessarily being avaricious
Why? Because one, i've already said that we NEED to follow religion in order to find what morality is, therefore, Bible references, no matter how poorly said to you, need to be used in order to understand morality and two, because one can only concentrate on a partner at a time. If one can fulfill his needs on one, why want another? Gee, I don't know, maybe because of AVARICE.
And your point about not hurting the other wanted partner's feeling was useless because no matter how 'emotional' as you put it, the situation gets, IT IS STILL IMMORAL TO PRACTICE POLYAMORY.
3. You also talked a lot about asexual people. Well, if an asexual does come into the situation, then kindly refer to my point about avarice which is still valid as I've just defended it, thank you.
4. I think a lot of your argument was based upon my Biblical references but now that I've defended that too, I doubt you have anywhere else to run.
Not all morality emanates from the bible
I would argue that, rather than morality emanating from the bible, the bible was created (or, at least written in such a way) as to promote what people back then considered moral. In other words, morality came before the writing of the bible, and the bible, as well as being a spiritual book, was also written to give people advice on how to live. One instance of this is when God commanded that people should rotate crops, a different one every year, with every fourth year carrying no crops (Leviticus 19:23-26). This was done not because God actually commanded it, but because the Jewish people wanted to be able to spread the knowledge about crop growth that they had discovered, and knew that the Bible had influence to get people to follow it. This prove that at least some (if not all) morality and advice in the bible came before the bible, and was then put in.
In fact, we continuously see examples of morality existing in cultures without religion, including many tribal cultures were atheistic for all of their existence. There are even more tribal cultures that, while having religion, did not derive their morals from those religions, notable examples including many Native American and African tribes. Furthermore, there are multiple passages in the bible condemning eating shellfish, wearing multiple materials, disobeying slave masters, and homosexuality. Yet, in modern society, we do not abide by any of these. How can we use some morals and not others, thus making the bible and inconsistent source for morality at best, and all of its suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt, considering how much is already ignored in it by its adherents.
Also, we have seen many examples of morality in non human society. For instance, many species of apes and monkeys (especially bonobos), have demonstrated moral behavior. There is even plenty of obvious anecdotal evidence that show that animals have some sort of morality. Bees are altruistic, and will sacrifice themselves for their hive. Wolfs and dogs will show guilt when they disgrace their pack leader, or do something to upset him. Cats... don't do anything. They are sociopaths. But still, there are plentiful examples that show that animals -- what we came from -- are capable of developing morality free from religion, as well as examples of atheistic tribes that still have morality.
Even if all morality emanates from the bible, that does not mean that only biblical moral standards are applicable
Even if all morality did come from religious standard which, as I have shown, it does NOT, we still cannot be expected to only use biblical standards for morality simply because we already don't. Even Christians disobey many Christian doctrines, as well as there being conflicting and contradictory information (the other seven sins I listed earlier, the three versions of the ten commandments, old testament and new testament conflicts). Who is to say we use any standards in a book where the standards are switched around and changed so many times throughout. If God is perfect, all knowing, and omnipresent, why couldn't he decide on what the Ten Commandments were?
I'm digressing, but still, there are also other religions with different morality (even those that support polyamory such as Islam, Mormonism, and many tribal religions), so why wouldn't we use those, as they are no more or less valid than Christianity. Not to mention that there are many secular moral ideologies, including Kantian ethics, Hedonistic values, and Utilitarianism. I would like to suggest that, given the broadness of the issue, that utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time) should be our moral standard for this debate, not the bible, or any other religious text. Utilitarianism is hard set in logical analysis, and therefore it will behoove us to use it as a guide for morality in deciding morality of polyamory.
Polyamory is not morally wrong
Because polyamory increases happiness for those willingly in the relationship, decreases happiness for no one save for butt-hurt Christians, can lead to the creation of more life (thus increasing overall happiness), and allows greater freedom within relationships, it is therefore morally right, or at least not morally wrong.
1. Foolish opponent! Every debater knows that the first definer of the topic is the one that everyone has to follow. I was blind to this in the first few rounds, but now that I have just realized this and spoken it aloud to the debate, you'd have to follow too. As this IS A RULE so you'd just have to keep following my definition.
And I think this rule that they made is pretty smart as if it weren't created, we would just be debating about what the correct definition of morality is the whole time and not actually talking about the real topic.
2. Morals do not depend on happiness. In fact, if it was, Earth would be a place where the majority of its inhabitance are immoral- why? Because people would just live life according to what they feel, not by the laws of morality. Therefore, your point that said that if people were happier, they would have a higher morality, is poor.
Also, how does the amount of freedom in your relationship affect your moral standard? I could have the most wives in the world- does that stop me from sinning? No, just because you have ten thousand wives, it doesn't stop you from being a murderer (if you are one), it doesn't stop you from excessive drinking- you'd still be the same type of person, only with a huge amount of spouses or s*x-buddies, as I've already explained that polyamory comes from lust most times.
NONE, I can think from myself, which is probably quite shameful for you as you, an eighteen year old needed FIVE sources to debate me, a thirteen year old who did not use a single source (except to find what polyamory means and to see different people's views on polyamory)
Also, as far as debate rules go:
1. We agreed to no such rules on definition, nor whether or not they could be debated which, in real debates, they can be.
2. If your was the case, I could've posted my opening argument with the definitions of morally wrong being 'my own, and no one but my own's, moral opinion.' and instantly won the debate.
Obviously, even in real debates, a definition can be debated if it is a critical point of one or both arguments. Such as the definition of morality. Which brings me to.
R1: It is the moral standard used, not the origin of morality, that matters
I find it very strange that you insist that in order to debate this topic, we must first discover the origin of morality. That is ridiculous, and completely off topic. You seem to have confused my arguments regarding morality as relating to the origin of it, when I was merely trying to disprove your use of morality as a credible one. When a definition is not credible, it can be changed mid-debate, specially if it is absolutely vital.
But, again, i am digressing. I am quickly going to point out that, while the origin of morality is not needed in this debate (save to disprove poor moral systems), the actual system we use is. Because I have disproved, adequately, your definition regarding religion, I have proposed what I believe to be a fair system that gives both of us grounds to argue. This system, as I have mentioned before, is Utilitarianism, and given the broadness of our issue, and the rational nature of Utilitarianism, I believe it to be in our best interest to use this. Also, in regards to your examples of murderers, it should be pointed out that Utilitarianism takes into account all participants, and since the one being murdered would lose more 'happiness' than the murderer would gain, murder is still morally wrong. It is far more universal than you have disgustingly straw-manned it to be.
I am not going to recount it word for word, but I will provide a source for you to be able to review it and, hopefully, agree that it is the better definition for this debate. In case you don't understand sources, it's the first one.
R2: Morals, in this circumstance, do depend on happiness
Because you seem to not believe in sources, I am going to assume you will not read the one I provided on Utilitarianism. So, I will describe it in very simple terms, and why morality, in this definition, does come from happiness.
Utilitarianism has two definitions within it. Happiness, meaning an increase in pleasure and so on, and unhappiness, meaning a decrease in pleasure, or pain, or life. Utilitarianism, therefor, relies on whatever gives the highest net 'happiness' or good, and results in the smallest net 'unhapiness' or bad. For example, murder, overall, decreases happiness for the one being murdered more than it increases the murderers happiness. Moving on...
R3: Given this, polyamory is moral or, at least, not immoral
Given this logic, the people in a willing polyamorous relationship are happier. They have multiple companions, which makes them happy. They are committed, which has been shown to make people happier/ have more pleasure, admittedly through sex. And, there is next to no happiness generated, save from some possible jealousy, which would not trump the happiness gained.
Because polyamory, in willing relationships, increases net happiness and decreases net unhappiness, it must be morally right.
1. Finding the origins of morality is not off topic.
How are we supposed to know what something is if we don't know where it came from? Sure, you will have some sort of idea of what it is but you won't be able to have something to refer to- and so, how much better or rather more accurately, can we refer to morality than its origins?
And you say we have to use the "actual system" of morality. Where did that system come from? If you do not say 'from the origins of morality" then that would be an inaccurate system!
See, morality is a concept (not a system, mind you)- you can try to change it into your own concept, but you will NEVER EVER be able to change the original concept no matter what you say- because the maker of the concept had spoken!
Factual-based things like math and science, you can change or prove wrong, but never concept. For concepts, whatever comes out of their author's mouth is final.
2. I would like to elaborate on my point that happiness does not have anything to do with morals with an example.
Let's say a secret club called the 'Jolly Jolly Bestiality Club"; a club, which encourages animal-sex, walks into the woods one day. They rape all of the animals they see. Now the overall rate of happiness would be 100 percent at that time, as only they know about the raping spree, and they are happy about it. Does that make bestiality morally right, sir? No it does not. It may make it socially correct, which is something I have said about in the beginning of the debate, but not morally.
Therefore, Utilitarianism is not a very accurate system, because as I've said, no matter how jolly one feels doing something, it doesn't make it correct.
3. Given this, polyamory is immoral or, at least, is not moral
Given THIS logic, no matter the willingness of people in a polyamorous relationship still does not make polyamory moral. They have multiple companions, who make them happy but happiness cannot equate to morality. They are committed, which has been shown to make people happier/have more pleasure, but that still does not qualify for the action to be moral.
How many times must I stress that just because one is jolly happy, it doesn't mean that they are free from immorality??????????????
P1: Regardless of if it matters or not, the bible is an awful moral standard
And let's, just to get the whole bible thing settled, point out that any moral system that points out the disgusting morality of the bible is automatically better. Whether or not morality is moral, I think we can agree that mass genocide, rape, murder, and oppresion of all non-Isrealites (men, women, and children) in the book of Joshua was immortal. I think we can agree that a god that would smite and massacre people for deviating in the very slightest, very most minor offense is wrong. The gross immortality of the bible is nearly universal, so any system of morality that points this out to the bible is inherently a more reliable source for morality than the bible itself. I think we can agree that stoning, burning, and murdering people for straying slightly off the norm (you know, eating shellfish or wearing linen and cotton or working on Sunday) is morally wrong. Clearly, because we would view these things as wrong, and these things are COMMANDED in the bible, the bible must not be a good source of morality, for it orders you to commit and approve things that you know are wrong.
P2: Even if it wasn't awful and disgusting, morality cannot come from the Bible
Besides, there is the whole Euthyphro dillemma that proves that the bible cannot be the source of morality. It goes something like this:
Is something good because God commands it, or does God command something because it is good outside of him.
If it is the former, than God could command murder and genocide and rape and it would be moral (which he does). If it is the later, than there is a moral code without God for which god gets his morality, and therefor the origin of such morality cannot be with God and the Bible.
P3: Morality is a concept, but we use systems to explain it and utilyize it
Morality, you are correct, is the concept of right and wrong. However, we are discussing which system of morality, which ideology about how to best approach what is right and wrong, would be the best for this debate. And if you can't prove anything moral or immoral, as you suggested (which I am going to pretend like you didn't), than polyamory cannot be immoral. Problem solved. I win, polyamory cannot be morally wrong. But, for the sake of debate, we are going to ignore that.
Defense of my P2
There are two ways of looking at this. First, you may factor in the animals who, of course, would probably be more unhappy than the rapists were happy. We have no way to prove animal happiness or unhappiness, so we generally, if factoring in animals, use harsh and realistic pain, discomfort, or pleasure, as opposed to emotions. Because the displeasure of the animals (presumably) would be great, I doubt greatly that the rapists would raise happiness more than the animals loss happiness.
Or, you could look at it without factoring in the animals, in which there is nothing inherently wrong about bestiality. Which, if the animal's well-being doesn't matter, who is to say that there IS anything wrong with it, because the animal doesn't matter. Not that I agree with this, I would factor in the animal's well-beings, but neither disproves Utilitarianism.
Defense of P3
If we currently have no system for which to base morality, than nothing can be inherently moral or immoral. Because of this, I would accept that, under CURRENT conditions of the debate, which are subject to change, polyamory is neither immoral nor moral. Since it cannot be immoral, it cannot be morally wrong, an therefor the debate falls in my favor.
Other Moral Systems
I am just going to mention a few moral systems and why, in all of them, polyamory is acceptable:
Hedonism: Because the participants of polyamory get joy, it is morally right.
Libertarianism: Because people are, in the end, free to do anything that doesn't harm anyone, polyamory is neither moral nor immoral.
Cultural relativism: Because polyamory is approved by the majority of the population, it is morally right.
Kantian: Because polyamory is not irrational, it in neither immoral nor moral.
Rights-based: Because the people in a poly relationship clearly do not consider it immoral, it is morally right.
Poyamory is not wrong.
Things like shellfish were not SLIGHTLY out of the norm in those days. The Jews were a very special people to God in the day. However, living a special life doesn't come free. The punishment had to come stricter. It's only just.
Also, God could kill people as an when he liked (and when I put it this way, then you come to realize that his killings or punishments weren't for nothing) as he created them in the first place. Let me give a simple example:
a) I build a lego house
b) I find it against my liking
C) What can stop me from destroying it? Nothing. I created it, therefore, I get to destroy it. So I destroy it.
And when you see this, you appreciate more that Jesus came to pardon our sins. What a mercy put on us. Such amazing grace!
Alright, so God can destroy- what about the people then, you ask, what gives them the power to stone that which they did not create? God. He, who has the power to destroy his creation permitted them to do it. Also, by stoning an offender, a stoner will know that that man down there could be him, so he better behave.
Knowing all this, my Bible references has been an okay reference for morality this whole debate.
2. Yes, God could've made all those things we think are immoral, moral- but he didn't. Therefore, it's pointless to try and debate if OTHERWISE happened because it didn't ;)
3. Animals are not human, and therefore do not fall under our moral codes. The only way they are involved is when we do something to them, in which case only our feelings/emotions are affected. Therefore, we have to ignore how the animals are affected- only the humans. So it doesn't matter what the animals felt- 100% of the rapist would have still been happy, and that still does not make animal raping correct
4. Utilitarianism, yes, is a way of utilizing morality. But as I've said, systems can be shaken. Not only have I shaken your system but crumbled it to the grown, and smashing it into pieces simply by saying for the last time, "It does not matter how happy or sad you are- your emotions do not affect the laws of morality. You can be happy doing it, but it is still wrong to rape animals."
5. The CURRENT conditions of the debate, as you put it is that I have justified all my definitions. You on the other hand have not completely done so- in fact, you surrendered to the difficulty of the debate by saying (I quote), "nothing can be inherently moral or immoral." That is plain lazy.
As the opposition failed to even have a base for his arguments, while I however have a strong one which I keep relating to, it would not be very wise to let him win. All awhile, his has been picking on how I define this or did that without actually having a point. Even those parts he numbers as P were more like Pick on your Opponent's Points than Points.
Therefore ladies and gentlemen, as my opposition failed to provide a single actual point, and as I crushed all his pickings and rebuttals, it is inevitable that I win.
NOTE TO CON:
Hey dude, it has been awfully fun debating with you. This debate has taught me a lot (I don't think I was ever familiar with such a system as Utilitarianism before the debate). I have to admit that though I seemed so confident, I did stumble at some of the things you wrote. Pls don't take my aggression seriously- I get excited easily.
Thx for taking your time to debate with me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TruthHurts 2 years 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate clearly hinges on the standard of morality used in the debate. Since this is, indeed, a debate on morality, discussing which system to use is fair game. As such, I do not buy that Pro can make a binding caveat in round 1, and I do buy that Con has substantially supported utilitarianism as a moral system, while simultaneously destroying biblical morality. Thus, Con has shown that polyamory increases happiness, thus making it a moral action; furthermore, he also demonstrated that, even by biblical standards, polyamory is at least amoral. Sources to Con, since he actually provided them, whereas Pro ridiculed their use and provided none. This substantially weakened his argument. Finally, conduct to Con, since Pro was needlessly (and somewhat comically) rude to Con, though these insults were often off-base. Happy to clarify, if anyone desires.
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.