There are NO absolutes ethically.
Debate Rounds (2)
Thanks pro. I accept.
You've argued that morals are set in place for a purpose. That purpose is to 1) do the greatest good for the greatest number, 2) do what is ethical based on circumstance, and 3) to treat humans with inalienable rights.
If no objective purpose for the human race exists, purposeful morals for doing "the greatest good" cannot exist because good and bad don't exist. You presuppose a purpose when you argue for morals promoting survival. Natural selection promoting the ongoing propagation of our species is a process, not a purpose. If you derive purpose from natural processes, should we derive purpose from all natural processes? Including the natural process of death?
Ethics, in the form of absolutes, must exist. The existence of absolute ethics are supported by the fact that regardless of culture, nation, or time-period, murder without cause and rape against someone's will is always wrong.
I'm NOT arguing that all morals are objective. I am arguing that objective morality exists because there is at least one case in which this is true.
I also disagree with your claim that there are absolute wrongs, such as murder and rape. Murder for the sake of pleasure is wrong. Murder for the sake of some higher quality of life is wrong. However, if one had to choose between the murder of 1 or the death of 100, murder becomes the moral conclusion. This is why ethics are situational, and not absolute. This situation may be unusual and a bit outlandish, but it is a valid situation and one in which one could not argue that it would be better to let the whole group die. We must consider every choice situationally, respect each individual"s rights equally, and when all else fails, make the ultimate decision to favor the majority.
It has been a pleasure debating with you. Best of luck in the votes, con.
Jumping right in.
"My theory does not treat survival as a purpose but as the first and most important of our guaranteed rights."
Guaranteed rights can only be the result of a social contract. Nobody is obligated or under any ultimate governing authority to adhere to or recognize these rights. Therefore the person rejecting that assertion that people have "certain unalienable rights" would be correct because "unalienable rights" automatically determines these rights exist objectively as part of being human.
Again, if humans are the result of spontaneous, random processes without purpose, then it follows that no objective purpose or moral ethic in the form of "unalienable rights" can objectively exist. Humans are just as capable for claiming that they are justified in causing harm to other humans because they aren't bound by any ethical absolutes and don't derive purpose from purposeless natural proceses that naturally result in the propagation of our species.
By stating that there is an "inescapable moral truth" requiring equality and justice that we must treat each life with equal respect, you are basically arguing that ethical absolutes exist in this form. If it is "inescapable" then no other possible moral route is plausible - thus defeating your argument that no ethical absolutes exist.
"I also disagree with your claim that there are absolute wrongs, such as murder and rape. Murder for the sake of pleasure is wrong"
Notice that in my first post I specifically stated that "murder without cause" and "rape against someone's will" is always objectively wrong. All I need to prove is that murder and rape are always unjustified in at least one specific case to show that ethical absolutes exist. In this case, murder without cause and rape against someone's will is always wrong - it automatically follows that this is an ethical absolute. I agree with you that murder can be situationally ethical. We could argue that our military "murders" foreign enemies but this is not "murder" without cause.
It has also been a pleasure debating with you too. Best of luck to you and your future endeavors.
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.