The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
chlln
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 288 times Debate No: 81753
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Animals are inferior and humans are superior beings. Humans can create and use weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately there is no justice. There is no mercy for the weak. Humans have conquered the Earth. Might makes right. "The weak will perish." startrek.com

"Back in 2006 ocean scientists published an alarming report on the crisis ocean fish face.

They released data showing that 90% of fish and other ocean life have perished in the last 100 years. 18% of ocean species have been reduced in number by more than 90% with 7% of fish species now extinct." http://russgeorge.net...

"Every five minutes humans kill off a species." animalethics.org

"Feral cats behind extinction of unique Aussie mammals" http://phys.org...

Just as the dodo bird has gone extinct. Weak species will become extinct. This is the harshness of reality.

Justice and morality are illusions. Constructs made by man. Instead, we have order. The order that the strong take from the weak. Viking raiders invading Europe. Mega conglomerates taking over smaller businesses. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

Laws and order are created so the rich and powerful stay in power. Think politicians voting for their selves. The idea of justice was created by the rich and powerful to maintain order and repress the peasantry.

Same goes with morality. Want to get rid of a troublemaker? Invent some moral law and then execute the person for breaking the bias law. People want a reason or rationalization for actions, even if they don't make sense.

This is the way I perceive the world. I may be wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing to stop aliens with advanced technology killing all species on the third rock from the sun for entertainment purposes.

Power and order are the only values. It is the duty of the powerful to take from the weak ensuring order. Therefore, animal cruelty in all forms is justified. Think wild chimpanzees, with an alpha ape. The strong tribes take over the territory of the weak. Just as the powerful species cause inferior species to go extinct.

http://www.startrek.com...
http://russgeorge.net...
http://www.animalethics.org.uk...
http://phys.org...
chlln

Con

Let's break down your argument

"There is no justice nor morality therefore animal cruelty is justified."

"There is no justice nor morality" You are implying that justice and morality do not exist.

I refute this argument, the mere dictionary definition of "justice" and "morality", common knowledge of the concepts, and the application of legal systems in the world to try to meet these constructs daily shows that justice and morality both exist, even if they are just man made ideas and constructs. Asking a person what justice or morality is would invoke the same or similar idea in all those you ask, meaning what justice and morality IS can be defined and tought to others, making it an idea and notion that does indeed almost irrefutably exist.

I believe you meant "justice and morality are idealist creations by man and not inherent in the universe, therefor animal cruelty is justified" however this is not what you stated you are arguing and not what I am burdened with refuting.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

"

: to have actual being : to be real

: to continue to be or to live
" merriam-webster.com

Justice nor morality doesn't exist just as ghosts don't exist. People can draw pictures of ghosts. They can talk a lot about ghosts, that doesn't mean they exist or are real.

You can draw pictures of characters within a fictional novel. That doesn't mean they exist.

Let's put this another way. If justice really existed how come some many species are going extinct? How come CEOs have ridiculous amounts of money?

Nay, morality nor justice exist. Its just order. Idealistic crowd pleasing. The sooner we realize the brutal realities of life the sooner we can create better order on our planet.

It is chaotic to exterminate species after species. The environmental ramifications are unknowable. If humans are going to remain in power we need to stop this chaos.

As long as we cling to non-existent ideologies we are blind to the real threat. Power is what allows us to remain in power. If we continue to pollute the Earth arbitrarily pollution will make us weak. Inferior species must be protected in order for us to survive.

We want to believe that there is fluffy ideologies like justice and morality. Yet, they don't exist. We need to seek reality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
chlln

Con

A ghost is an object, therefor the absence of such object automatically implies non existence. Morality and justice are non objects, and exist just as readily as happiness, self esteem, respect, discipline, integrity, honor, and courage.

To answer your questions of species and ceos is pretty simple: Justice and Morality are determined, imposed and brought to existence by sentient life that chooses to do so not inherently by the universe itself.

This requires high level thought and as such only few species such as humans strive to imposed justice or morality in any sense of the word, preventing species extinction would require one species to comprehend extinction, forecast it, and takes steps to stop it(which we ourselves have only recently done in the time span of species, we have many species on endangered lists or bred in captivity to keep the species alive best we can)

CEOs with ridiculous amounts of money is very subjective, you are implying this is unjust which is flately wrong, being a rich ceo does not necessitate injustice bill gates is a ceo who invented one of the most useful devices known to main, and his reward for doing so can very readily be argues as "just". Here in America many believe allowing people to strive to make it to the top is a just system.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

What about fictional characters in novels? They aren't real, they don't exist. How is justice and morality different than fictional characters?

"A ghost is an object, therefor the absence of such object automatically implies non existence. Morality and justice are non objects, and exist just as readily as happiness, self esteem, respect, discipline, integrity, honor, and courage." Con

Happiness can be measured by dopamine receptors and chemicals in the brain. What proof do you have that courage exists?

Justice and morality are abstract constructs with no bearing in reality.

"CEOs with ridiculous amounts of money is very subjective, you are implying this is unjust which is flately wrong, being a rich ceo does not necessitate injustice bill gates is a ceo who invented one of the most useful devices known to main, and his reward for doing so can very readily be argues as "just". Here in America many believe allowing people to strive to make it to the top is a just system." Con

Have you seen the tactics Microsoft has used? They were using monopolistic policies. Like forcing computer manufacturers to install Microsoft's programs. Also, there is Linux, a free operating system. Think Ubuntu. Remember there was Mac machines too. I don't think the world would have suffered a great loss if Bill Gates never invented Windows.

"(CBS/AP) - Microsoft's co-founder and Chairman Bill Gates is scheduled to take the stand today in Salt Lake City to testify in a lawsuit filed by software company Novell. " Cbsnews

"
Microsoft Ruled a Monopoly / Court finds firm abused its power" sfgate.com

If justice exists what about the many holocausts?

http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.ubuntu.com...
https://www.apple.com...
chlln

Con

Fictional characters in a novel do not exist, the "idea" of the fictional characters exists as it was created by the characters author and can be conveyed through communication(visual in movies or through reasoning and imagery in text)

The "Idea" of morality and justice certainly exist that cannot be debated barring the philosophical arugement "does an idea exist" (We will assume the low entropy of the brainwaves forming and idea or thought does in deed make the "idea" of something exist as well as the fact that that idea can be transferred)

So that only leaves do they exist in reality? We have "Courts of justice", relatives of victims saying quotes such as "Justice has been done, or has not been done" We have a "Justice" Department entirely devoted to turning the "Idea" of justice into practice.

Again I Believe you meant to say "justice and morality are idealist creations by man and not inherent in the universe, therefor animal cruelty is justified" however this is not what you stated you are arguing and not what I am burdened with refuting.

The morals and justice constructs are idea's of sentient thought, which makes the idea of justice and morality exist immediately upon creation. But justice and morality do exist not as ideas as well.
The implementation of justice by our society(not perfect but striving for it) is what creates justice, just as the "thought" of charity exists in your mind but does not exist itself until you give the charity money goods or service.
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

"Fictional characters in a novel do not exist, the "idea" of the fictional characters exists as it was created by the characters author and can be conveyed through communication(visual in movies or through reasoning and imagery in text)" Con

Now your understanding. The idea of fictional characters, ghosts, elves, orcs, tolls, justice and morality exists.

"But justice and morality do exist not as ideas as well.
The implementation of justice by our society(not perfect but striving for it) is what creates justice, just as the "thought" of charity exists in your mind but does not exist itself until you give the charity money goods or service." Con

This is where I disagree. Acting upon the idea of an elf or troll does not make the elf or troll exist. Jumping around trees like an elf does not make an elf exist. Just as giving money to poor people does not make charity exist. Besides by that logic stealing from poor people would make charity cease to exist.

Con seem to think acting out the idea of charity or justice makes charity or justice exist. Then, I present the opposite. That performing the opposite of charity makes charity not exist. Just as injustice would make justice not exist.

Since there is so many injustices in this world, I present that justice does not exist.
chlln

Con

"Acting upon the idea of an elf or troll does not make the elf or troll exist. Jumping around trees like an elf does not make an elf exist. Just as giving money to poor people does not make charity exist. Besides by that logic stealing from poor people would make charity cease to exist." -Pro

Obviously acting like an elf or monkey does not make a elf or monkey exist an impersonation by definition is not the object it is impersonating. Charity Justice or morality in implementation is not an impersonation. If i give money to a homeless shelter that is charity, charity now exists in the transaction of monetary transfer to that organization, it is not an improv or impersonation of charity, it is charity. When justice is attempted to be done some degree of justice exists in and of itself, we don't go to court for entertainment.

"Con seem to think acting out the idea of charity or justice makes charity or justice exist. Then, I present the opposite. That performing the opposite of charity makes charity not exist. Just as injustice would make justice not exist." -Pro

This is absurd If i give 20$ to charity and someone does the opposite(either steals 20$ from the charity or spends it on vices) it does not undo the fact that charity existed in my giving of that money. It just creates an injustice that our legal system would then hopefully address. An injustice does not "make" justice not exist, it just means it does not exist yet, when that person is arrested and made to pay restitution for stealing that 20$ then justice to some degree exists again not injustice.

"Since there is so many injustices in this world, I present that justice does not exist." -Pro

I would like to point out admitting injustice exists but justice does not is a very weak position

Injustice existing would not be evidence of justice not existing on smaller scales anyway this is a logical fallacy
Debate Round No. 4
Stupidape

Pro

Here's another way of looking at things, on this poll the majority think justice doesn't exist. 28% say yes and 72% say no.

"Obviously acting like an elf or monkey does not make a elf or monkey exist an impersonation by definition is not the object it is impersonating. Charity Justice or morality in implementation is not an impersonation. If i give money to a homeless shelter that is charity, charity now exists in the transaction of monetary transfer to that organization, " Con

I beg to differ. By giving money to a homeless shelter you are impersonating charity just like a person impersonates an elf or an orc.

"This is absurd If i give 20$ to charity and someone does the opposite(either steals 20$ from the charity or spends it on vices) it does not undo the fact that charity existed in my giving of that money. It just creates an injustice that our legal system would then hopefully address. An injustice does not "make" justice not exist, it just means it does not exist yet, when that person is arrested and made to pay restitution for stealing that 20$ then justice to some degree exists again not injustice." Con

You have to ask why the person would steal the $20 in the first place. Perhaps because the powers at be forced that person to steal to survive. Then, arresting that person would not be justice.

"I would like to point out admitting injustice exists but justice does not is a very weak position"

I'm not admitting injustice exists. The idea of injustice exists just as the idea of justice exists. What I was stating before is, if performing acts of justice made justice exist, surely acts of injustice would do the opposite. Therefore, since so many actions have been performed that fall under the idea of injustic then there is no justice left.

"Injustice existing would not be evidence of justice not existing on smaller scales anyway this is a logical fallacy" Con

A liquid can be either hot or cold but not both at the same time. Just as an action cannot fall under the idea of justice and injustice at the same time. Justice and injustice are mutually exlusive. Therefore, if an action is injust, it cannot be just. Thanks for the debate. Nice and long. You certaintly didn't give up.


http://www.debate.org...
chlln

Con

A poll of people believing or not believing justice exists in no way supports your argument. Many people believe in angels, this does not mean they exist.

By giving money to a homeless shelter that IS charity, not an impersonation of it. It meets the accepted definition of charity
"char"i"ty
G2;CHerədē/
noun
noun: charity; plural noun: charities
1.
the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need."
Obviously giving money to a homeless shelter in this case is charity.

"You have to ask why the person would steal the $20 in the first place. Perhaps because the powers at be forced that person to steal to survive. Then, arresting that person would not be justice."

This is illogical being forced to steal to survive does not mean it is just in the first place, and you can easily throw out all instances of being forced and look at only cases where it was not forced.

"Since there is so many injustices in this world, I present that justice does not exist." -Pro
"I'm not admitting injustice exists. The idea of injustice exists just as the idea of justice exists. What I was stating before is, if performing acts of justice made justice exist, surely acts of injustice would do the opposite. Therefore, since so many actions have been performed that fall under the idea of injustic then there is no justice left. " -Pro

You definitely did admit injustices exist, as you said "there are so many injustice in the world" implying there existance not the idea of such, you then went on to deny this.

Also even if didnt just admit injustice exists your argument is flawed, you cannot say all the injustices in the world negate all the justice and there is no justice, all the negatives in your checking ledger balance out the positives on final balance(net justice in the world) but do not erase eachother they are still there independently. There can be just as much injustice in the world or more as justice and justice still exist in some cases.

"A liquid can be either hot or cold but not both at the same time. Just as an action cannot fall under the idea of justice and injustice at the same time. Justice and injustice are mutually exlusive. Therefore, if an action is injust, it cannot be just. Thanks for the debate."

The system you are evaluating as just or injust cannot be both at the same time under the same viewpoint, however with two different liquids(or situtations) one can be hot(or just) and another cold(injust) you cannot average the temp between the too just as you cannot say there is just as much injustice therefor justice doesn't exist, in the one liquid cool(justice) exists the other hot (injustice) can exist.

The bottem line is justice and morality are constructs(ideas) of sentient thought. When these ideas are applied to the real world through us striving for them that is where they come into existence.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
Voted.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
StupidapechllnTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD - While I remain neutral for most of my votes on here, because both seem rather even in how convincing their arguments are and grammar, I'm forced to give the only point I can hand out, and that goes to Pro. Stupidape (Pro) actually used sources. I was surprised Con used absolutely zero sources and citations for his argument and format. Pro wins that vote by fact he actually has plenty of sources to back him. Conduct, grammar and their rhetoric all seem rather similar and hard to detach a winner and lose for those. The only advice I can give Con is to use sources.