The Instigator
inaudita
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
Brian123456
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Their is no universal morality, only strength and weakness

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 66420
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

inaudita

Pro

First round is acceptance and definitions. I refer to strength and weakness as meaning that strength is what rules over what morality is and weakness is what submits to strength.
Brian123456

Con

I am glad that Pro has brought this debate into matter, so I accept the terms and rules of this debate and goodluckt to Pro.

First I would like to like to provide definitions, definitions that will be absolute throughout this debate and must not be altered in anyway way or form once the definitions are accepted.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Strength: the quality or state of being strong, in particular.
Weakness: the state or condition of lacking strength.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

That is all I needed to say in this round.
Debate Round No. 1
inaudita

Pro

We look at the world from our own points of view. This view is influenced and created almost entirely by those around us. These views teach us the difference between right and wrong, which means those views are our morality. These views are innately subjective to our own persons, meaning they are not universal. Views may share similar characteristics, but they are in no way perfectly the same. Morals evolve by standard evolutionary processes, where those that are strong survive while those that are weak fail. They are subjected under the forces of stronger views. We need only look as far as the Nazi system and see how they subjected their morality on those weaker than them. For these reasons Morality is only the result of that which is strong and its defeat of that which is weak, which define the morality of individuals, meaning that the morality isn't universal.
Brian123456

Con

Resolution
Debate Round No. 2
inaudita

Pro

It appears Con has made a bit of an error. I extend my arguments and await his resolution.
Brian123456

Con


I am sincerely sorry about last round as my computer seemed to have frozen on me, right as I attemtped to submit my argument. In any case allow us to proceed with this debate.

Resolution

I would like to remind or clarify that the resolution is for Con (me) to prove that universal morality is of existence or to disprove that subjective morality does apply to everyone, based on what Pro claimed.


Facts

Pro claims that men live a subjective live, where everyone follows their own moral of code through their surroundings, which is idealy correct in a sense, but if everyone followed a subjective morality then everything would be of opinion and facts would be of no use. Allow me to evaluate. Facts are informations that cannot be denied of it's truth and are statements that are set to stone. Therefore morals that are facts cannot be denied and are set to stone for truth. For example it is a fact that I am human enabling me to do my daily actions and doing whats right or wrong, its a fact that the strong devour the week, but without the presence of the weak, the strong wouldn't exist. In any case, facts are objective matter in which people tend to use to potray their own subjective morality.


Mathematics

What is mathematics? Mathematics is a subject in which is used to convey a problem or to solve a problem in an sophisticated order, therefore mathematics is a structured subject that cannot be altered in any shape or form: mathematics is a set to stone solution. For example, a person can do the math 1+1=3 but it is wrong, therefore breaking the principle structure of mathematics. In any case mathematics is like a structured building and if one takes one part of the building off, then the rest tumbles.


Subjective Morality = Objective Morality

I would like to emphasize that subjecive morality is manifested upon an objective morality, as I have already mentioned this before one cannot prove a subjective morality but one can prove an objective morality because an objective morality is not the case of strength or weakness but rather a path for innovation. Pro states that subjective morality is evolved in evolution, then I ask Pro what subjective morality exists in the beginning of time? The intiation of evolution? It all started from spieces, that's evolution and how did spieces millions of years ago or more even survive this place we call Earth? It's quite simple the only thought and idea needed for survival is ¨Eat, drink, and rest to survive¨ it's not rocket science this is objective morality in which a living organism must follow to live his/her live, it cannot be denied and that's how evolution progressed throughout history and even til this day we use that objective morality to survive.




(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

(http://www.livescience.com...)

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Debate Round No. 3
inaudita

Pro

Rebuttal

Subjective Morality, by its very nature, is an individual's objective morality, this is in no way universal. Universality, by its very definition, means it applies to all. There are of course characteristics that apply to all sane and rational individuals such as need of food, water, and shelter, but these are so basic that they can’t be called morals. If these were morals things like squirrels and mice might be considered moral, so this can be no suitable definition. One can have a subjective morality, but only in the terms of the strongest enforcing individual in the area. Things like pedophelia and murder are discouraged in most modern societies, but this is only due to the principle of the evolution of morals based on the procedures of standard evolutionary theory, where one moral succeeds over the other to the general principle of survival of the fittest, where the weak, useless, and/or malicious morals are discarded due to their inefficiencies and inability to survive. Due to this principle, perhaps one day there might be a universal set of morals, but this won’t be due simply to the nature of inalienable rights (which don’t exist), it will be due to the fact that what succeeded is stronger than another. This goes into the principle of Will to Power.

Will To Power

What defines strength in individuals also defines strength in the morals of societies, and that is will to power. The will to exert one's power over another individual or society of the individuals. Some systems promote will to power more than others, like the Nazi system which attempted to exert it’s specific principles over other groups of individuals which it would virtually enslave in the thirst for Lebensraum[1] for the German people.

Argument

Introduction of a New Moral into a Preexisting Moral System

Strength id the exertion of one's will to power, and it is almost impossible to calculate somethings strength as it is proceeding. How would one know the results of World War II in 1940? One could make predictions, but as one might know in this case, it was a very different situation in 1940 compared to 1945.

How exactly is a moral system changed though? There are two ways in which a moral system can be changed: acceptance and strength.

Acceptance is the simplest of all methods in the changing of moral systems. Acceptance occurs when an idea is introduced to a new moral system and it is acceptable to it in a way that it is easily receivable. This follows the simple process of going from introduction to acceptance. Examples of this can be seen in such situations as the abolition of slavery in the Northern states of the US prior to the civil war or the banning of harmful drugs also in the US[2]. This principle is much more simple than the process of the eventual acceptance of a moral introduced by strength.

Strength works through the powers of propaganda, fear, and hatred. They are all used together for the common purpose of increasing the strength of a newly introduced moral until it is accepted.

The principles of hatred and fear are so interlinked that I shall discuss them together. Hatred is caused by fear and disgust. Disgust is simply the revoltment at that which you believe is below you. This can be seen in the dislike of other races by the German populace under Nazi Reign. The introduction of this notion of German superiority was introduced by propaganda, which I shall discuss later. Fear is either the fear of defeat or the fear of pain, both of which can be seen during war. The fear of defeat is simply the fear of loss in some variety. This has inspired nationalistic attitudes, which can cause major change as the United States does with the suspension of Habeas Corpus in times of revolt or war. Fear caused by pain is a much more complicated matter psychologically. Some studies report the existence of “Stockholm Syndrome” where one can actually become attached to ones torturers, but in most cases it still appears to inspire hatred. These tools of hatred and fear are used in the next for of enacting moral change, and that is propaganda.

Propaganda is the chief means of changing a moral system through strength. It uses all available technological means in order to influence the ignorant masses. People are put into large crowds, which have no purpose of their own other than that told to them, where individuals are inspired to do anything except intelligent action and realistic thought. Speakers follow the lead of the great masses in such a way that from the living emotion of the hearers the apt word which they need is suggested to them to sway the mass. Among the mass instinct is supreme. Speakers tell blacks or whites, there is no gray area to speak of if you want to influence that which can’t think. Propaganda is confined to bare necessities to be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas that make use in order to create hatred and manipulate it for its own advantage. Through the force of this great power single individuals can influence the masses to be shifted from traditional loyalties to the point where they can impose their chosen order and destroy the morals of the past.

Conclusion

If morality can be shifted with the strength of words how can it be universal to all men? People are bent to the will of that which is more powerful than them, limiting the freedoms of the individual to that which is most powerful. Even if an individual has the right to own a small group of particular views they are still subject to the mother morality of that which is in power

[1]the territory that a state or nation believes is needed for its natural development, especially associated with Nazi Germany. It was specifically farmland in the Nazi case.

[2] Though some consider it unsuccesful it was introduced via acceptance

I thank Con for this debate and look forward to his rebuttal
Brian123456

Con

Rebuttals
Before I begin my rebuttals, I would like to point out that Pro seems to follow one form of subjective morality and no else and relies heavily on that one point of view. (not insulting)

¨Subjective Morality, by its very nature, is an individual's objective morality, this is in no way universal.¨
Yes pro may be correct in a sense, but that was not the point I was attempt to go at; my point was that there's only two sides one can be on, belief upon objective morality, or subjective morality. Therefore what is the aftermath of the two? Simple: if one believes in subjective morality then those who believe in subjective have the moral code, ¨there is no universal morality¨ which is an objective morality. Therefore everybody who possess some sense of are in one way or another in an objective view.


¨What defines strength in individuals also defines strength in the morals of societies, and that is will to power. The will to exert one's power over another individual or society of the individuals. Some systems promote will to power more than others, like the Nazi system which attempted to exert it’s specific principles over other groups of individuals which it would virtually enslave in the thirst for Lebensraum[1] for the German people.¨

Here I will just go ahead and assume that this point is to support pro's claim.
Will to Power: Belief to be the main driving force in humans: achievement, ambition, and the striving to reach the highest possible position in life.
The will to power is just another subjective matter that can also be defined as a principle. Prnciples are another way of defining moral codes, and morals codes exist and no one can deny it. Therefore isn't that an objective matter?

I believe I do not need to say more as pro hasn't completely negated all my previous arguments and pro has only been repeating his own points and creating more irrelevent points that are meaningless without full rebutall from pro. Therefore I stand my previous points and my rebuttals.

¨
An eye for an eye, only makes the world blind.¨


Debate Round No. 4
inaudita

Pro

Besides responding to some of cons points, he hasn't really rebutted my argument at all. Some men share values, some differ in values. Some believe in objective morality, some in subjective. Nonetheless, if all do not share a similar set of moral values morality isn't universal. I hope con rebuts in the next round and await his response.
Brian123456

Con

Review
In any case,

Facts

Pro claims that men live a subjective live, where everyone follows their own moral of code through their surroundings, which is idealy correct in a sense, but if everyone followed a subjective morality then everything would be of opinion and facts would be of no use. Allow me to evaluate. Facts are informations that cannot be denied of it's truth and are statements that are set to stone. Therefore morals that are facts cannot be denied and are set to stone for truth. For example it is a fact that I am human enabling me to do my daily actions and doing whats right or wrong, its a fact that the strong devour the week, but without the presence of the weak, the strong wouldn't exist. In any case, facts are objective matter in which people tend to use to potray their own subjective morality.

Mathematics

What is mathematics? Mathematics is a subject in which is used to convey a problem or to solve a problem in an sophisticated order, therefore mathematics is a structured subject that cannot be altered in any shape or form: mathematics is a set to stone solution. For example, a person can do the math 1+1=3 but it is wrong, therefore breaking the principle structure of mathematics. In any case mathematics is like a structured building and if one takes one part of the building off, then the rest tumbles.

Subjective Morality = Objective Morality

I would like to emphasize that subjecive morality is manifested upon an objective morality, as I have already mentioned this before one cannot prove a subjective morality but one can prove an objective morality because an objective morality is not the case of strength or weakness but rather a path for innovation. Pro states that subjective morality is evolved in evolution, then I ask Pro what subjective morality exists in the beginning of time? The intiation of evolution? It all started from spieces, that's evolution and how did spieces millions of years ago or more even survive this place we call Earth? It's quite simple the only thought and idea needed for survival is ¨Eat, drink, and rest to survive¨ it's not rocket science this is objective morality in which a living organism must follow to live his/her live, it cannot be denied and that's how evolution progressed throughout history and even til this day we use that objective morality to survive.

Again Pro has not negated my ¨Facts¨ case and my ¨Mathematic case¨ and pro has only built upon his own claim despite having to negate my essential arguments.


(http://dictionary.reference.com......)

(http://www.livescience.com......)

(http://en.wikipedia.org......)

(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Vote Con, an eye for an eye, only makes thou blind
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Good luck to you both.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
interesting choice of judges...
9spaceking, WillRiley, Pfalcon1318, lannan13, Jebediah-Kerman
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
inauditaBrian123456
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting read. If I were to grade this as if this were as it were a regular debate, Conduct would go to Con due to Pro accusing him of not really refuting his points while he did make some rebuttles. Sources would also go to Con as he did use a handful of more sources than Pro. Arguments go to Pro however due to him having serval points still left on after the debate and many of his key arguments still was on it. So with the 4-3 debate score the victory goes to Con.
Vote Placed by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
inauditaBrian123456
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made arguments that were not refuted by Con. Con essentially forfeited a round a well.