The Instigator
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Mr.Bonpaclat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: It is more likely than not, that morality does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 875 times Debate No: 49089
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

TUF

Pro

Resolved: It is more likely than not, that morality does not exist.

This debate is about Moral nihilism, VS objective or subjective morality. I will be affirming the resolution.

The set up for this debate is as follows:

4 rounds total. The first round will be for acceptance, while the following 3 rounds will be for debating.
10,000 character max.
3 days" time to argue.
2 week voting period.
Yes to required voting comments.

I am going to keep this challenge open to all, though I hope to get a serious debater to engage in a fruitful philosophical discussion. Good luck to my opponent in advance!
Mr.Bonpaclat

Con

i accept and firt of all wag 1
Debate Round No. 1
TUF

Pro

Contention 1: Morality often contradicts itself

To start this point, I would like to talk about a scene from one of my favorite movies, Inglorious Basterds. In this scene, a German officer is with his troops looking for Jewish runaways that he believes to be hiding in a French household. While talking to the head of the house, they draw into a conversation where the German Officer feels the need to justify Hitler"s movement. In this brilliant scene, he uses an example about the human attitude to the difference of rats and squirrels. In the scene, the Frenchman agrees that the attitude towards rats is worse, because rats were responsible for help in spreading the bubonic plague. The German officer counters this by pointing out that squirrels can equally carry the plague. The conversation concluded with German officer and the Frenchman agreeing that the attitude difference came down to appearance of the animal, rather than it"s specific behavior.

https://www.youtube.com...

The point of all this is, many moral principles seem to base a lot of similar judgments as with the human attitude with killing rat"s vs squirrels. Many people believe that killing is ultimately wrong; however why does this logic only applied to killing other humans? Humans set mouse traps in there house every day, smash house spiders, or go hunting for sport? There are many justifications that are used, that are not generally used equally when killing a living being of another species.

It is my understanding that the concept of morality is really all built in the psyche. The emotions we feel when another human is killed are more imminent in our own species then they are in other species. However the contradiction is pretty telling when questioning the act of killing itself being a violation of morality.

Contention 2: Learned behavior, and variables.

What makes a moral principle a moral principal? Where is the guideline? Some may say it is created by God. Aside from a theistic outlook, most "moral guidelines" are learned behaviors. Parents teach their children what is "right and wrong". In fact, everything we do is a result from learned behaviors brought to us by parents, and society. If we took out the variable of learned behaviors, a child would grow up instinctually, almost primitive as if it were an animal. Instinct driven, with the sole intention of survival. In such a situation, a human being might be just as willing to kill another human being for food. What we would or could do outside the context of an organized and functioning society is a great way to analyze and look at the foundation of moral principles. Justifications we make that excuse moral principles, are the single variable that makes me and many other question moral principles. If a rapist were found, tortured, and killed, many individuals would say that the action was morally permissible. Their negative feelings toward another individual and his action can entirely dismiss an indefinite act of morality. But if we excuse the action because of the variable of Justice, we draw a really slippery line in determining what is allowable VS what isn"t. In American culture, rape has been taught to be one of the worst offenses to moral violation; some even feel it is worse than murder. Some individuals even feel pleasure from watching such torture, feeling the persons actions justify the glee in watching what would normally be classified as an evil act.

I am going to conclude here, and keep this simple and short. Morality is hard to define, and has loop holes and slippery lines that are used to justify its existence. It is completely more likely that it doesn"t exist. I believe that morality is a psychological connection of human emotions, but the belief does work for a functioning society of human survival.
Mr.Bonpaclat

Con

you are just baboss thing
Debate Round No. 2
TUF

Pro

... I extend my arguments in wait of rebuttal.
Mr.Bonpaclat

Con

Your arguments are invalid because they are based in a film.
Debate Round No. 3
TUF

Pro

My arguments made an example with a scene from a film...
Mr.Bonpaclat

Con

It's still based on a film.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Just more likely. And yes I would make time between arguments 72 hours. I have a muay thai competition tomorrow so I will send out the challenge Sunday or Monday. :)
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Won't let me post! Test!
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 3 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
Assuming the resolution is only asking that I prove my argument is more likely, not that I provide absolute proof.. Is that the case?
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 3 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
Certainly. I've been wanting a more far-reaching debate anyway. Everything I've had so far has been pretty small. That, and I'd just like to see how I do.
Message me when you have it posted, I'll accept first chance I get. All I ask is that the period between rounds is at least 48 hours. Between full time work, and full time school, sometimes it takes a couple days to find the time to write the argument.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
I do. Would you be willing to accept?
Posted by BananaPhilosopher 3 years ago
BananaPhilosopher
Fruitful philosophical discussion was not achieved.. Perhaps fruitful philosophical soliloquy.
If you post this again, I'd like to see how it pans out in a more serious debate. Did you plan on it?
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Moral nihilism literally denies any morality. Also I am not sure if there is a difference between nature and construction of society. Could you elaborate why they are two seperate entities?

And I also tried to specifically stay away from the argument you are accusing me of making, as that is a common philosophical annoyance. I didn't think my contentions were supposed to mean anything about being tangible. I talked about contradictions and learned behavior, both ideas de-legitimitize the concept of morality. At any rate, I will admit my opening case was not strong. I didn't put as much time into as originally intended, after inspecting my opponents history of debates. With that said, I would love to challenge a more serious debater like yourself to this same debate if you are at all interested.
Posted by chophamsammich 3 years ago
chophamsammich
I was confused when I originally read this debate prompt because it didn't specify whether morality exists in nature or is a construction of society, it easily being the latter. Morality exists, and though it is highly subjective, there must be some objective cutoff. You couldn't kill yourself over and over again if you wanted to. Pro's argument for morality not existing is akin to me saying that "because there is no objective point of reference to the universe, the universe does not exist." All human concepts are abstract, and just because morality isn't a tangible occurrence doesn't mean that it is nonexistent, even among instinctual humans.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
TUFMr.BonpaclatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, although he typed a sentence no argument was posted. Pro also had sources.
Vote Placed by MrDelaney 3 years ago
MrDelaney
TUFMr.BonpaclatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made arguments. Con simply trolled.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
TUFMr.BonpaclatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel bad for Pro. Conduct for Con's behavior--he never actually participated in the debate. S&G because what little Con did post was largely unreadable, while Pro actually posted coherent sentences. Arguments to Pro for making some, as opposed to Con. Tempting as it was to award sources, I was on the fence enough since Pro only had the one that it doesn't seem worth awarding.
Vote Placed by Relativist 3 years ago
Relativist
TUFMr.BonpaclatTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Loss of conduct for trolling and for "baboss thing". Pro presented his argument while Con fails to elaborate his point on why films are invalid.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
TUFMr.BonpaclatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con trolled this debate. Next time TUF set criteria before issuing open challenges.