The Instigator
PowerPikachu21
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Furyan5
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Nature of Morality cannot be defined (even to Human Valuing)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 80869
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

PowerPikachu21

Pro

I argue that the Nature of Morality (a perfect source of morality that has no flaws) cannot be defined. Con can choose whatever he/she thinks holds the source of morality, and I, as Pro, must prove that Con's position doesn't work.

A few definitions to go off of

Nature of Morality: a flawless answer of how we choose right/wrong.

Flawless: no flaws; when I am unable to counter Con's position, his/her answer is flawless

Morality: knowing right from wrong.

Rules:

1) No insulting, trolling, etc.

2) A forfeit (timing out) will count as a concession in that round.

3) You may quote famous Philosophers that you got your position from. (Example: Protagoras, Human Valuing)

4) How I know about the "Nature of Morality' thing is from a game called "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher", so I may quote that, or use it as a reference, often. If the opponent disagrees with this, I won't use it.

5) My goal is to refute Con's argument, as I'm disproving the fact that a flawless source of morality can be found. If BoP falls on me in round 2 by Con's decision, I may do so.

6) Morality does exist, but a flawless answer cannot be defined. Just wanted to make that clear

Round Rules:

Round 1: Con will present his source of morality,and his reasoning to do so.

Round 2: If Con wishes me to present why I'm choosing my side, I'll do so. I'll also ask questions if needed.

Round 3 & 4: We argue whether Con's position is faulty or not. If I think I found a flaw, I'll show the flaw. Then Con has to reply to my points

Round 5: I sum up Con's points and the flaws I showed, then I'll try to see if it really is flawless. If it is, I'll concede. If I see yet another problem in his thoughts, I'll present it. If I present the flaw, Con must explain it.

If someone is able to prove a flawless answer, accept this debate. I wish you luck.
Furyan5

Con

I'll start with a little anecdote. Jack is 5. Jack's father drinks and when he is drunk he gets abusive. He uses foul language and sometimes beats Jack and Jack's mother. To Jack's 5 year old brain, this is how a man behaves. This is how children must be treated and this is what women enjoy.

A bit extreme, I know. But you can replace Jack with Jill and make Jill's mother cook for the family, or having affairs. It makes no difference. The point is that we learn our morals. Not by what we are told to do, but by watching how adults do things. What we see, becomes right. It doesn't have to be parents. Any role models will do. Uncles, aunts, grandparents, neighbours, even fictional characters from movies and video games. Their actions set the president for what is right and wrong. This information is stored in our subconscious mind and sometimes we are not even aware they are there. This is because we have a second set of values. Ethical values.
Ethical values reside in the conscious mind. These are the rules set by adults, teachers, priests, holy books, imaams, rabbi's and society at large. We automatically adopt these ethical values when we are part of a group, family or society. But we don't always agree with them. As long as our conscious minds are in control, we will follow the ethical standards, but when our subconscious takes control, our true morals come to light. Alcohol is one of the most common causes of loss of consciousness.
We find that people do things they would never do consciously. Things they know are unethical. They don't even know why they did it. Anger is another cause. This is why road rage occurs. I'm sure there are many people who felt the urge to punch someone in the face at one time or another. But its not all gloom and doom. Sometimes a societies ethical values say something is wrong, but our morals say its not. Things such as racism, bigotry, classism and elitism are encouraged in certain communities but an individual could realize that it's wrong.
Neither ethically, nor morally is there a one size fits all definition of good and evil. Ethical values vary from one group to the next and moral values differ from person to person. But the source of our moral values is without a doubt learnt through our childhood experiences. Even if we were too young to remember or comprehend the things we saw, they are recorded in our subconscious and set the tone for what type of adults we will one day become.
Debate Round No. 1
PowerPikachu21

Pro

So if a child experiences something, that is automatically right for that individual? What if it goes against what they've been told before the experience? What if ethical values are set in position before the father gets angry? Ethical values, as you say, are what society believes (and mainly is) moral; right. But if ethical values aren't the same as moral values, and ethical values come first to someone before a ("moral") experience, then which would be moral?
Furyan5

Con

It's irrespective what comes first. Morals are determined by what adults do and ethics by what they say. I might tell my child lying is bad, but which adult hasn't misled their child? Santa, the tooth fairy, the boogie man, etc. Once a child realizes that adults lie, either adults are bad, or lies are not. Most children choose to believe adults are not bad. Therefore adult actions are always moraly correct. It's only once we reach the age of reason that we start to judge people by ethical standards. But everything we learnt before that remains in our subconscious. If you have ever had unethical thoughts or behaved unethically and can't explain why, look to your early childhood. Look at the adults you grew up with and their behaviour. Everything will come clear to you.
Debate Round No. 2
PowerPikachu21

Pro

PowerPikachu21 forfeited this round.
Furyan5

Con

Furyan5 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
PowerPikachu21

Pro

Sorry I forfeited. (I did get intimidated by Con's argument)

Here's something I thought of: What if a child experiences contradicting moments? Let's say Bill's father plays golf, and takes Bill to his golf games once Bill is 4 years old. After Bill's 7th birthday, the father takes him to go golfing. Bill's father tells him that cheating is bad. But Fred, the father's friend, cheats all the time by tossing his own ball around while the father isn't looking. Bill sees Fred cheat. He sees his father play fair. This is Bill's first time golfing, so he doesn't know whether he should cheat or not. He saw a person cheat, and he saw a person not cheat for 3 years. Is cheating 'moral' for Bill?
Furyan5

Con

Lol that's a tricky one. But like I said, its not what is said but what is done that sets our subconscious moral standards. The child would learn that socially it is wrong to cheat, but its OK to do it if nobody sees you. The child would try to please his father by not cheating, but if the need arrose and he felt sure nobody would find out, he would cheat.
Debate Round No. 4
PowerPikachu21

Pro

PowerPikachu21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
When it is about the origin you are probably right. It is like learning a language.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
I think he means an explanation of how morals originate that explains all human behaviour. Thus far, all other theories are flawed as they can't explain all human behavior morally. My explanation makes every human act moral though some acts are regarded as unethical.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
The nature of the perfect source of morality, that has no flaws ?? ...= A morality software program installed in every existing computer/robot/human... ? Flaws are good. It makes us human. And the World/life dynamic. Flaws are the key in dawinism. So is the perfect.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
My account is both practical and provable. It's the only explanation of morals that covers every possible moral decision, action and thought. I challenge any one of you to come up with a moral issue not covered by my theory.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
It doesn't matter.
Posted by WP_henderson 1 year ago
WP_henderson
Does con need a practical or merely theoretical account of morality?
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Judeochristian perfect morality can be defined. But that's basically changing the purpose of the debate so I wouldn't run it
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Uhhh... what now?
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
>Judeochristian morality supreme.
No votes have been placed for this debate.