The Instigator
Bricheze
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Pure Moral Reasons Are Not Enough to Form Laws

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,262 times Debate No: 6540
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (7)

 

Bricheze

Pro

I believe the only reason we should have for laws is to protect living beings, owned items/ structures, and a few basic rights (such as freedom) from being non-consensually harmed or taken. And people whom are unable to make rational decisions for themselves should be protected from themselves (Not spiritually or in a way we can not prove, psychologically only, something like suicide)

All other reasons people may find immoral for themselves, but others should be allowed to chose to do as they wish, as long as it doesn't non-consensually harm someone else. You could argue with morals when deciding new laws, but morals shouldn't be the sole reason, there should be other logical reasons either then just 'that is immoral, there for it is against the law'

I would like to ask my opponent not to argue that the concept of basic protection is a moral concept. As that isn't what this debate is truly on, it is truly a debate on the right of choice, not a technicality like that, really it is a kritik to argue that way.
Metz

Con

I would like to Thank my opponent for setting up such an interesting debate. I look forward to a good and interesting round.

The Original Foundations of Morality can be traced back to the Ten Commandments Supposedly given by god. For thousands of years and even now we can view these commandments, regardless of religious beliefs to be the supreme moral laws that govern us. While the first 5-6 commandments(depending on religion and translation) may be spiritual the last are in the form or moral Imperatives.

You shall not kill
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

These are the six Original Moral laws and the reason behind laws for thousands of years up until the present. Why do we have many of our laws? Because we believe that the prohibited acts are Morally wrong.

The Commandments aside let us look at many modern day laws that have purely moral backgrounds...
Why is Prostitution Illegal?
Because many people consider it Immoral

Why did We Stop Segregation and slavery?
Mainly on the foundation that all men are moral equals, and that both of these concepts are MORALLY wrong.

Why did the international Community try so hard to stop the holocaust? at this time there was no international law that was being broken, however the international community felt that what the Nazis were doing was wrong, that thier actions were Morally Forbidden.

The Entire Principle of equality is founded upon Pure Morals, Obviously not everybody is Mentally, Physically or Genetically equal, so why is it such an established norm that people should be treated equally when they plainly are not equal? because People are MORAL equals, A purely Moral principle.

OPPONENTS POINTS

"few basic rights (such as freedom)"
Why is freedom so fundamental? why do we frown on Despotisms when what they are doing is legal in their own land? Because it is Morally wrong to take away freedom, we consider it to be the natural condition , our laws are based on the Moral Concept That Freedom is a Human right.
Debate Round No. 1
Bricheze

Pro

"For thousands of years and even now we can view these commandments, regardless of religious beliefs to be the supreme moral laws that govern us."

But, for church and state to be seperate can we say 'Becuase of the ten commandments, this act should be prohibited"

"Why do we have many of our laws? Because we believe that the prohibited acts are Morally wrong."

But other reason can be applied to them.

The Commandments aside let us look at many modern day laws that have purely moral backgrounds...

"Why is Prostitution Illegal?"

'Because many people consider it Immoral'

There is that, and there is also the spread of STD's and illegal acts associated with prostitution, so yes we have made it illegal to be a prostitute, but in some areas if you receive a license you can legally practice prostitution if you follow the guidelines AKA not doing the associated crimes (because then you would face the punishments for the crime and lose your license) and taking tests to prove your not positive for any STD's.

In some areas it is illegal and no licenses are available. The sole reason being 'it is immoral' and is that fair? Should you be able to push your moral beliefs on me through laws, even though I am doing something a consensual and unharmful way? No.

Why did We Stop Segregation and slavery?

"Mainly on the foundation that all men are moral equals, and that both of these concepts are MORALLY wrong."

There's that, and the fact that we were non-consensually inflicting harm upon of group of people. Which, as I said before, should be one of the only reasons that we make laws. To protect people from non-consensual harm. Not to protect people from 'moral wrongs'

"Why did the international Community try so hard to stop the holocaust? at this time there was no international law that was being broken, however the international community felt that what the Nazis were doing was wrong, that thier actions were Morally Forbidden."

That and the fact the thousands upon thousands of innocent lives were being killed for no warlike reason. We didn't think it was just 'moral wrong' we thought that it was internationally our job to stop harm from coming non-consensually to a group of innocent people.

"Because People are MORAL equals, A purely Moral principle."

And also, because people all deserve to not be non-consensually suppressed based on their faith, skin color, or origins.

OPPONENTS POINTS

"Why is freedom so fundamental? why do we frown on Despotisms when what they are doing is legal in their own land? Because it is Morally wrong to take away freedom, we consider it to be the natural condition , our laws are based on the Moral Concept That Freedom is a Human right."

And because people all should have the basic right of not being non-consensually suppressed by their government.

Why is this the only thing you refute? What about the rest of my arguments?

My point is this: Why do we not have the freedom of choice? If no one is being non-consensually harmed, why should we be allowed to force our morals upon other people? Saying things based purely on morals, should not be an acceptable thing to use to create a law, example: 'it is immoral for gay's to marry, therefore it is against the law'
Metz

Con

"But, for church and state to be seperate can we say 'Because of the ten commandments, this act should be prohibited"

The Point being is that many of our laws are based in religion, These laws are based on Morals.

"But other reason can be applied to them"

Like what? Why shouldn't we kill? Yes it is depriving of life, but without Moral Reasons who is to say life is valuable? Many Laws are based in Morality. We as a society have accepted that it is wrong to kill, A MORAL choice.

"
There is that, and there is also the spread of STD's and illegal acts associated with prostitution, so yes we have made it illegal to be a prostitute, but in some areas if you receive a license you can legally practice prostitution"

Bill O'Donnell, former Nevada state senator (R-Las Vegas), said:
"It bothers me that we're [Nevada] making money off the backs of women. Condoning prostitution is the most demeaning and degrading thing that the state can do to women."

MORAL ISSUES... The foundation of these laws are Purely Moral
Also there is Research that Legalization may decrease HIV/Aids Which I will Produce if asked but I don't want to post alot of extra stuff...

Why did We Stop Segregation and slavery?

"Mainly on the foundation that all men are moral equals, and that both of these concepts are MORALLY wrong."

There's that, and the fact that we were non-consensually inflicting harm upon of group of people. Which, as I said before, should be one of the only reasons that we make laws. To protect people from non-consensual harm. Not to protect people from 'moral wrongs'

It seems like we have Very Different conceptions in this round as to what is morality and what is not....
During the pre-civil war era it was even believed that Slaves were not Human, It is almost universally accepted that everyone is equal know, why did we change? because our Morals did...
Also:
Why is Non Consensual Harm bad?

"Why did the international Community try so hard to stop the holocaust? at this time there was no international law that was being broken, however the international community felt that what the Nazis were doing was wrong, that thier actions were Morally Forbidden."

That and the fact the thousands upon thousands of innocent lives were being killed for no warlike reason. We didn't think it was just 'moral wrong' we thought that it was internationally our job to stop harm from coming non-consensually to a group of innocent people.

Again, Why is Killing bad? It is bad because it has been accepted by society as being bad, This Is still a Moral Reason for why killing is bad.
Why was it our Job to do so? Moral Obligation? Again we see Purely Moral Reasons and Foundations....

"Because People are MORAL equals, A purely Moral principle."

And also, because people all deserve to not be non-consensually suppressed based on their faith, skin color, or origins.

Why do all people deserve this?
becuase it is treating them as moral equals

"Why is freedom so fundamental? why do we frown on Despotisms when what they are doing is legal in their own land? Because it is Morally wrong to take away freedom, we consider it to be the natural condition , our laws are based on the Moral Concept That Freedom is a Human right."

And because people all should have the basic right of not being non-consensually suppressed by their government.

Why is this the only thing you refute? What about the rest of my arguments?

Why do they have this right? Morality is the foundation of rights, Human rights are a Purely Moral Concept.

I only refuted this point as I had covered the others in my case.
Debate Round No. 2
Bricheze

Pro

"Like what? Why shouldn't we kill? Yes it is depriving of life, but without Moral Reasons who is to say life is valuable? Many Laws are based in Morality. We as a society have accepted that it is wrong to kill, A MORAL choice."

Because we have named, murder, rape, and burglary as against the law. Not necessarily wrong, but harming other non-consensually is against the law. It is all that I want my government to defend me from, non-consensual harm.

Look, your arguing the exact way I asked you not to. Were still mainly talking about what laws are morals and what laws aren't. But, I named the specific laws I wanted us to just state as not morals, or excepted as the only moral laws we count as not being morals (reasons we should allow the government to defend us from, whether or not they are moral doesn't matter) What your arguing is an ENTIRELY different debate. Because I want to talk about "forcing your beliefs onto me, when there is no need too" Yes I told you could debate differently, but I specifically asked you not to debate this way.

"Bill O'Donnell, former Nevada state senator (R-Las Vegas), said:
'"It bothers me that we're [Nevada] making money off the backs of women. Condoning prostitution is the most demeaning and degrading thing that the state can do to women.'"

You could argue that against the law stating that prostitution is legalized, that it is harming the women. And it might be consensual, but the women is not in the correct mind-set to know what she want to consent to and what she doesn't: As she is addicted to drugs. So no this isn't purely morals, it is protecting a prostitute from herself when she is not in the correct mind-set to protect herself.

But, still there are women that are in the correct mind-set and they still want to be prositutes because they like the work. They should be allowed to do as they wish. No one is being harmed except them, but it is consensual and they have correct mind-set to be doing it, so why do we stop them? Because it is immoral to us? Is that fair?

"It seems like we have Very Different conceptions in this round as to what is morality and what is not...."

Which is why I asked you to argue whether or not you thought 'murder, rape, burglary, and harm in general' were moral concepts, to just argue that they weren't, so we could debate in a way that this debate was supposed to be debated. Not on technicality, which is proving the statement wrong 'because everything is a moral concept' instead of arguing it incorrect because 'morals are good reasons to form laws, even when you have no other reasons.'

"Again, Why is Killing bad? It is bad because it has been accepted by society as being bad, This Is still a Moral Reason for why killing is bad."

And that's great if you think it is immoral, good for you. But the government should till only protect us for 5 reasons:

1) Non-consensual harm
Rape, murder, abuse, etc.
2) Harm to ourselves when we are not in the correct mind set to make life altering decisions
Young kids dropping out of school, before they are the right age to understand what it means
Prostitution-- Only doing it because of an addiction
Drugs-- addiction, peer-pressure, not an understanding of what the addiction means.
3) Destruction of property
Burglarizing, graffiti, etc.

"Why was it our Job to do so? Moral Obligation? Again we see Purely Moral Reasons and Foundations...."

Because, we wanted our government to protect innocent people.

"Why do all people deserve this?
becuase it is treating them as moral equals"

And yes, that could be your look on it. But the government should look on it the way I said it "Stopping suppression of people non-consensually for no real reason, either then 'morals'"

"Why do they have this right? Morality is the foundation of rights, Human rights are a Purely Moral Concept."

I don't care what they are founded on, today they shouldn't be looked as as moral rights, they should be looked on as rights we want our government to give us and everyone else.

"I only refuted this point as I had covered the others in my case."

And your case had nothing to do with the rest of my arguments. Like I said before you argued the way I asked you not to. I asked in the first argument of the debate to consider the reasons I listed to not be moral, for the sake of this debate's main concept; because I knew, just as it did, we would end uponly argueing about what is pure morals and what isn't, and we would never get the chance to debate about exactly what I wanted to debate on.

'Pushing your morals onto me through the law, when what I am doing is not non-consensually harming someone, isn't fair because their is no reason to do it, and we should be allowed to follow our own moral beliefs"

You ignored this argument, and had an entire debate on a technicality I asked you specifically not to have it on, one that you agreed you wouldn't have it on. But, you did anyways.
Metz

Con

Look Essentially What my point has been is not that Basic Protection is a Moral reason, but that rather the fact that laws are created to save from wrong and to promote right.

"Like what? Why shouldn't we kill? Yes it is depriving of life, but without Moral Reasons who is to say life is valuable? Many Laws are based in Morality. We as a society have accepted that it is wrong to kill, A MORAL choice."

Because we have named, murder, rape, and burglary as against the law. Not necessarily wrong, but harming other non-consensually is against the law. It is all that I want my government to defend me from, non-consensual harm.

As I see it, this is one of the major points in the round, Why is Non-Consensual Harm Bad? This seems to be derived the the Moral right of Autonomy. So why is Non-consensual harm bad? because it is Wrong. Protection may not be a moral reason but what we protect IS based in morals. without any conception of morals then nothing is wrong, because nothing is wrong, everything must be right. Thus if everything is right that laws cannot exist.

"Look, your arguing the exact way I asked you not to. Were still mainly talking about what laws are morals and what laws aren't. But, I named the specific laws I wanted us to just state as not morals, or excepted as the only moral laws we count as not being morals (reasons we should allow the government to defend us from, whether or not they are moral doesn't matter) What your arguing is an ENTIRELY different debate. Because I want to talk about "forcing your beliefs onto me, when there is no need too" Yes I told you could debate differently, but I specifically asked you not to debate this way."

The agreement was made that I would not argue protection as a Moral Concept, This is pretty clearly stated in round one.... I have never said that Protection was a moral concept, I merely argued that Pure Morals are the reason for all laws even if you discard some of the examples as outside of where I agreed to argue, the main premise of my side still remains, the resolution asks us is laws should be made for moral reasons, And I say any law has Pure Moral reasons behind it.

Here is one solid example of laws made for pure Moral reasons, equality. Why is equality important? the simple answer is because each person has the same moral worth, and deserves the same rights.

Human Rights are another, Why do humans have these basic rights? without the human right of liberty nobody could be non-consensually taken of their right to liberty as it was simply not a right. The reason they cannot is Pure Morality.

"I don't care what they are founded on, today they shouldn't be looked as as moral rights, they should be looked on as rights we want our government to give us and everyone else."

Look what the resolution is asking us, "Are Pure Moral reasons enough to form laws?"
Not to sustain laws, The Human Rights that are now legally protected were formed from PURE MORAL REASONS.

'Pushing your morals onto me through the law, when what I am doing is not non-consensually harming someone, isn't fair because their is no reason to do it, and we should be allowed to follow our own moral beliefs"

You ignored this argument, and had an entire debate on a technicality I asked you specifically not to have it on, one that you agreed you wouldn't have it on. But, you did anyways."

I did not debate a technicality, I did not Attempt to say that protection was a pure moral reason as I was asked not to, the core of my argument was essentially(to sum this up quickly) that all laws are not based upon protection but upon right and wrong, The Law against killing exists because it is wrong to kill, this is an instinctive moral value that most humans have but is nevertheless a PURE MORAL REASON.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
The resolution asked if "pure moral reasons are enough to form laws" And what I did was provide examples that They are enough.

If we were to debate the should topic there is no way either of us could win.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
I am just mad because Metz completely ignored what I asked him to debate. We were supposed to debate whether or not morals SHOULD be used in laws, we ended up debating whether they ARE used in laws.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"I don't F'n care what they 'count as' or if they might be morality. I AM SAYING WE SHOULDN'T COUNT THEM AS MORALITY, AND FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DEBATE, METZ WAS SUPPOSED TO AGREE OR NOT BRING IT UP."

O, okay. Then it is just a really stupid and untenable resolution.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
I don't F'n care what they 'count as' or if they might be morality. I AM SAYING WE SHOULDN'T COUNT THEM AS MORALITY, AND FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DEBATE, METZ WAS SUPPOSED TO AGREE OR NOT BRING IT UP.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
"I believe the only reason we should have for laws is to protect living beings, owned items/ structures, and a few basic rights (such as freedom)..."

A few basic rights counts as morality.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Actually, I said that morals could be considered, but we should never only use morals AKA saying 'That is immoral, therefore it is against the law' instead of saying 'That harms others and is immoral, therefore it is against the law'
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
Pro contradicts herself by saying that people should have fundamental, inalieble rights, yet we should not consider morality. Her very argument is founded on a misunderstanding of the term "morality", and so CON has clearly won this debate.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
"I did not debate a technicality, I did not Attempt to say that protection was a pure moral reason as I was asked not to, the core of my argument was essentially(to sum this up quickly) that all laws are not based upon protection but upon right and wrong,"

And that wasn't what the debate was on. This debate was on whether or not morals SHOULD be the reasons we form laws, not whether or not morals ARE the reason we form laws.

"The Law against killing exists because it is wrong to kill, this is an instinctive moral value that most humans have but is nevertheless a PURE MORAL REASON."

I don't care what the law is based on now. Because I want them to be based on 'this non-consensually harming someone' so that way we can each choose our own morals, that do not effect other people.

Remember, the title of this debate wasn't 'Are current laws based on moral reasons?' it was "Pure moral reasons are not enough to form laws"

This debate wasn't on how it is right now, it was on what it should be in the future.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
"The agreement was made that I would not argue protection as a Moral Concept, This is pretty clearly stated in round one.... I have never said that Protection was a moral concept, I merely argued that Pure Morals are the reason for all laws even if you discard some of the examples as outside of where I agreed to argue, the main premise of my side still remains, the resolution asks us is laws should be made for moral reasons, And I say any law has Pure Moral reasons behind it."

What laws are moral and what are not, still has nothing to do with this debate.With this alone you wouldn't of had anything to do with the debate at hand. Was the debate topic 'Are laws based on morals?' or was it 'should be laws based on morals?'

What were you trying to prove by debating this way? Let me answer for you:

That protection is a moral concept.

What else could you have been trying to prove?
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
"As I see it, this is one of the major points in the round, Why is Non-Consensual Harm Bad?"

Look, I told you, it doesn't necessarily mean non-consensual harm is bad. It means that is all that I want my government to protect me and others from is non-consensual harm. That is all I want laws against.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
BrichezeMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
BrichezeMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
BrichezeMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
BrichezeMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
BrichezeMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
BrichezeMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dgray 8 years ago
dgray
BrichezeMetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05