The Instigator
Harlan
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
ThaPeople
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality).part 2!

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  
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: 1/17/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 999 times Debate No: 1612
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

Harlan

Pro

Hello, to whoever excepts this debate. I have re-initiated this debate, for anyone who will accept. My previous debate veered off course a bit. I have edited this opening argument only skightly. I am looking foward to it!...

Let us look at the world objectively…let us look at it transcendentally...looking at the very fundamental existence of all particles, bumping into each other. In this world, things happen. Events occur, particles exist. All is. But then, some one shall make the claim that a certain event, a certain occurrence; a certain movement of particle's mere existence is "bad", I try to think deeper into this, since the people never do…and I can not find a fundamental, short definition of the word "good" or the word "bad". They mean nothing. Let us look outside of the human brain, which operates only to pass on its genes, and is rarely a good example for these transcendentalist philosophical theorizations and speculation. I do not know how better to summarize my argument then: things simply...are. Their existence cannot be good or bad.

The lion neither loves nor hates the gazelle, it just eats the gazelle. Humans are so delusional and ignorantly intelligent that they have these misleading delusions. I say "ignorantly intelligent", as in we have analyzed things based on the natural modes of our minds, labeling anything that our instincts deter us from as "bad", quite naturally. But in reality…pure, rich, un-embraceable, un-perceivable reality, good and bad are non-existent, good and bad do not exist. WE can never fully observe reality; because we must see it from the window of our brain…we are forced to see it through a tint, or a window that has been painted over. Everything perceived; our WHOLE WORLD; is merely a signal received by the brain. With sudden delight, thinking this over, I have remembered the analogy of the cave. My window analogy was nothing in comparison… Have you heard of the allegory of the cave? It was made by Plato.

It depicts a cave, in which there are prisoners, who are chained in such a way that they can not turn their heads. They are facing a wall. Behind them is a fire (artificial light) in front of this fire are puppeteers that are holding puppets that that cast the shadows of the puppets across the wall to which the prisoners are viewing. This wall is their world, they know no other. Only a small amount of natural light enters the cave, and this is the little glimpse of reality. When a prisoner is set free of the cave, it takes him a long time for his eyes to be accustomed to the blinding light. He tries to return to the cave and liberate his old comrades, but they think he is crazy. You all will know it better as "the matrix", a movie that was made partly based on the allegory of the cave.

For more, http://www.people.cornell.edu......

So anyways, in reality, there is no good or bad…things occur from cause and reaction, and they occur whether you're instincts like it or not. It may not be bad, then, because things simply exist and act.

For something to be good or bad, by the deepest definition I can compile, is supposedly, (would have to be) either beneficiary of negative to some or other cause. But (sorry to the religious), nothing has any higher cause; things merely exist and occur without any cause or goal in mind. For only brains have goals, and the laws of nature do not have brains, and simply follow the laws of cause and reaction. So if there is no fundamental cause, there can be no good or bad, only existence. If you think that there is a cause, then please share so I may pick it apart.

You might ask at this point: If I do not believe in morality and good or bad, then why am I alive, eating, sleeping, have any political party, or bother to do anything whatsoever, or post in many of my debates with a m oral arguments. The answer is: because I do not have freewill. I will not go into detain of that, you may read my other debate on freewill for that. Its relevance in this context is that though my "rational" mind knows that there is no good or bad, my mind has a block to letting my way of living or acting embrace this idea, as it strictly goes against the structure of the brain. I realize that, in there being no purpose, there is no purpose in trying to resist my instincts, as it is useless. Also, being a Taoist, I purposeful follow my instincts, but also believe that to transcend this and to truly embrace the idea to the point of not believing at the very core in good or bad, would be truly liberating, to the point of godliness.

If I did any number of things to which you considered bad, it would not matter, as there is no purpose in anything. Everything is futile, and hence, nothing is futile, hence everything is futile. It would not matter. It would only make a couple brains distressed, and would have absolutely no affect on the fundamental purpose of everything, because, of course, there is no fundamental purpose to everything.

Added:

The problem with good and bad are...they are solely based on (namely self-preservation) instincts. IF human life did not exist, would there still be good and bad? Would good and bad apply to distant extra-terrestrials that may exist in the galaxies? NO. It is only an illusion. Ifg an alien was to come and see Humans, practicing thier silly "goods" and "bads" how do you think it would look.

Morality is just a bunch of taboos and supersticious ways of acting, sometimes based on instincts, and/or based on conditioning.

If I asked someone what the purpose for eating a slice of pizza was, it would go something like this...

q:"What is the purpose of eating a slice of pizza"

A:"To be full"

q:"WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF BEING FULL?"

A:"To continue living"

q:"What, then, is the purpose of living?"

A:"...WEll...I guess to continue the human race"

q: "What then is the purpose of continuing the human race?"

A: "well, I don't r4eally know"

IN the end, nothing has any grand purpose.

PS. PLease do not solely base this on your religious beliefs, as the existance of god can neither be proven nor disproven.

-Harlan
ThaPeople

Con

To agree with you, I would have to 1st deny my existence. 2nd I would have to deny society. Both are every relevant aspects to day to day survival for humans. With out either my life is in danger. So "good" and "bad" are way more that illusions it's part of our conscience and ability to reason that separates us from the rest of the worlds inhabitants.
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Pro

Thank you, sir, for accepting my challenge, now on to your points…

"I would have to 1st deny my existence"

Could you please elaborate? I fail to see the correlation between morality and existence in of itself. Of course you EXIST, but you do not exist in the form of good nor bad; you just exist.

"2nd I would have to deny society."

Deny society…What? What are you denying society? I am afraid I do not understand. Deny society's existence?

If I understand your argument right, then let me clarify something: This debate is not about the results of acting upon this belief; it is about whether it is true.

"So "good" and "bad" are way more that illusions its part of our conscience and ability to reason that separates us from the rest of the world's inhabitants"

Here is how that statement contradicts your side of this debate…

You state that morality is a part of our conscience.

The conscience is in our mind.

If it ONLY exists in our mind, then it is, therefore, an illusion.

It is true that fully embracing this belief in your way of life and living would perilize the continuation of blood running through your veins. However, I will repeat, it does not matter. There is no grand cause to anything. WE may not freely embrace this idea, however, because we have a mental block. WE do not have free will. And once more, this debate is not about the outcome of acting on these beliefs, it is about the validity of them.

I challenge you, thapeople, to give a short, simple formula for whether something is good or bad. It must be universal, and it can't be full of exceptions to the rules and what not. A short universal formula to whether something is good or bad. It must apply to the whole world, to different extra terrestrials.

A brain; a human; is just a physical object, a collection of particles. It can not sin, any more than a boulder can sin. The existence or occurrence of particles or movements of, can not be good or bad.
ThaPeople

Con

ThaPeople forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Pro

My oponent has forfieted that round, but I shall'nt, until further notice, make any assumptions based on that. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt by waiting to see if he posts in this round. Thank you, once more, for the debate, thapeople.
ThaPeople

Con

ThaPeople forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Harlan

Pro

It may appear to the voter that thapeople has intentionally forfieted, but I think that we should keep in mind, that according to his profile, as of this post, he has not been online for 6 days.

Therefore, I do not think this is the result of a lack of rebuttal.

So I say to the voter to not vote based on the fact that he forfieted, but to vote on what has been presented in the rounds.

Thank you for the debate, and if you want we can re-start this debate.
ThaPeople

Con

ThaPeople forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Conduct - TIE: While CON forfeited his rounds, I do not believe forfeiting rounds is a sign of bad conduct, just bad convincing arguments

S&G: TIE: Both sides did fine.

Convincing Arguments - PRO: PRO addressed all arguments from CON and his refutations went undefeated.

Reliable Sources - TIE: While PRO gave one source, it was more for research purposes.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Would anyone like to engage in my third attempt at making a debate about this subject?
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
thapeople had 1 argument. One that didn't even address all the points of the instigator. He loses BY FAR!
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Thepeople drops everything and Harlan makes some good points. Have to vote Harlan on this.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I think we all have our own little terms for this phenomenon, Harlan. I'm not sure if there's an accepted term.

I remember when I first developed the notion that you call "ignorantly intelligent". I described it as "not being able to think outside the species"

I then modified it to "anthropocentrism", which means "human centered thinking".

I came to the same realization you did when studying anthropology and wondered how an alien race would perceive the customs and activities of the human race. All the things we value as humans are inherently meaningless. Thus, "good" and "bad" are just arbitrary labels for things that are of no consequence whatsoever.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
How bout it, Wingnut?

[';/./[]['/']/'/
']'
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
HarlanThaPeopleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Vote Placed by kykrebs 8 years ago
kykrebs
HarlanThaPeopleTied
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 kato0291 9 years ago
kato0291
HarlanThaPeopleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ContortedExistence 9 years ago
ContortedExistence
HarlanThaPeopleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
HarlanThaPeopleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
HarlanThaPeopleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Defenestrator 9 years ago
Defenestrator
HarlanThaPeopleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
HarlanThaPeopleTied
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:30