Spinozian Pantheism is Sound (Rap Battle)
Debate Rounds (4)
All arguments must be made in verse form. BOP is solely on Pro.
Let's do this.
For future reference, a substance is something which can exist
The idea is cool, but I found a contradiction,
Where's the room for morality in this fiction?
This particular theory doesn't have a provision
Greatest oversight in philosophical fusion.
Because if god is everything, and everything is god
Then god contradicts himself, no need to applaud
Opposite actions are both considered consistent
So inconsistent actions are somehow consistent?
If I murder a child then I am not in the wrong.
Not even if I do it with a Justin Beiber song.
All actions are taken as part of this god?
So the universe is founded on some sort of fraud?
This idea takes away the logic of nature
From normality, reality, and standard behavior
You cannot ignore it, the problem is major
Forfeit and back off this philosophy, hater.
So when you tell me to look for problems within
I think you overstepped yourself on the win
The problem is apparent, god is not god if contradictory
You probably should've consulted your wictionary
You say that contradictions are entailed, and this will cost you dearly
For while Spinoza's theory implies self-interest
That's not the same as whim worship, and you can share that on Pinterest
One must live in harmony with God
Any other belief is just odd
Killing a child is never right
Nor is mugging or starting fights
The reason is that one must be rational
And rationality does not make men factional
If 2+2 really does add up to four
A group of rational men would always agree, now pick your jaw up off the floor
Human nature cannot be denied
Man needs to be rational, else he'll be fried
And since all men share the same nature
Killing another is essentially suicide, to use that nomenclature.
As you can see, rationality lays a good framework
For metaethical theories that stop people from going berserk
My opponent's supposed arguments then flounder
Maybe her parents should just ground her
The poor judgment here cannot be overlooked
Reason is not a good morality book
Reasonable arguments can still disagree
The arguments get uglier than Nanny McPhee
We can raise reasonable points
On all ends of the spectrum
But choosing who's right
Is the biggest problem
I can argue genocide
Is for the greater good
Because the planet is running
On a shortage of food.
But does that make genocide right
Due to utilitarian rhetoric?
Or is it still wrong
Due to deontological ethics?
Even now we prove my argument
By presenting reasonable points
Although we stand in disagreement
Morality is at the toss of a coin.
My opponent starts with the faulty claim that reasonable arguments do not always agree
May I ask how two reasonable people can disagree that the sides of a triangle must equal three?
Likewise, if a rational person finds that murder and theft are wrong
Any hope for a rational rebuttle will soon be gone
A syllogism does not rely on personal preference
A is always A, regardless of your frame of reference
When two arguments seemingly conflict
Check your premisses; one must be a trick
Your examples of ethical conflict leave much to be desired
Is it not so that one side must be right? Your rapping is mired
In the swamp of subjectivism, even though that's what I'm accused of
Only one of teleology and deontology can be rational, and that's a fact, love
Even if we cannot know prima facie what is reasonable
The fact remains that moral systems remain feasible
One can still be moral assuming he's not out of touch with reality
Given this, it is absolutely clear that I have argued my case valiantly.
Jonbonbon forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.