The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Tokyo Ghoul: The moralities between the Humans and the Ghouls. Which side is right?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Siris has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 94490
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




This is on the side of the Ghouls.

Some say that killing is wrong; that doing so is against everyone's morals. And yet, what is morality? Murder; what is that? Is it wrong to feed yourself; even if the only thing you can eat is people?

Morality is entirely perspective based. If you are born in the west, like I was, eating horses, dogs, and cats seems wrong. But is it really? Yes, we can have them as pets, but we can also have livestock as a pet. Is it just wrong to do so based on the fact that we "love" them? What is love? To care for another? It is entirely based on who raises you, and how. Some people who have been raised by cannibals, for example, think that eating people is okay, and that it would be weird not to. Such is the case for Ghouls; the only thing that they can eat (not because of opinion or live choices, but a legitimate biological requirement) is humans... And each other. Although very few do, as other Ghouls taste foul, or is against their beliefs. Few see it as wrong to eat a person, as they can only eat people. Humans, on the other hand, see it as murder, for a Ghoul to eat the only thing that they can eat. Morality is pointless, in the Animal Kingdom. As refusing to eat or do something, just because of their own morals, is ultimately decreasing their chances or reproducing, therefore, that behavior will be less likely to be passed on throughout the next generations. The same could be said for Ghouls, where if you think that eating people to be wrong, you will become weak, and eventually die.

Murder is "wrong", based on your moralities. Some uneducated vegans think that meat is murder, to kill an animal for food. I say uneducated as murder is entirely human based. A animal killing a human; okay, the human was killed by an animal. A human killing an animal; well, the animal was killed by a human. However, a human killing a human; you are in a lot of trouble now, you murdered another human. Murder; a human killing another human. What about Ghouls, though? Are Ghouls human? Some speculate not, as they can do these things with their bodies to produce a "Kagune", which is something that a human cannot do. Others say that they are humans, as it has been proved in the series that a Ghoul can mate with another human to produce a successful offspring, although it is rare. So, what do you think? Since they can mate with each other, they are part of the same species. But are they human?

Feeding yourself is a biological need. Plants consume sunlight, water, and various materials found in soil. Bugs and small animals consume they plants. Bigger bugs and animals consume the smaller ones. And that goes on and on until you reach the apex predator of the community. Ghouls can only eat one thing: other humans, which makes them the apex predator of whatever community that contains humans. Saying that it would be wrong for a Ghoul to eat a human is like saying it is wrong for a human to eat a cow or a plant. It is only considered wrong because it is against most humans moralities. The Ghouls do the only thing they can to keep themselves alive, as humans also do. Would it be right to consider what the Ghouls do to be wrong? To kill them off, just because they can only eat people? In a situation where you became a Ghoul, would you be able to eat a person to keep yourself alive; or, better put: would you be able to stop yourself from eating a person?

I was bored and wanted something to do. Please give me something to do.


You can argue that the ghouls are doing nothing wrong because they need human flesh to thrive but you cannot argue that the humans killing off their predator is morally incorrect.

If you think starvation is something for ghouls to combat by eating humans, then you also agree that ghouls are something humans must eliminate in order to survive themselves.

Pro associates doing something for survival's sake as morally correct, out of the two the humans are the defender and reactor and the ghouls are the original perpetrator making them the original moral upset that the humans are responding to.

Ghouls can eat dead people, they choose to eat them while they are alive and choose to prey on a range of ages rather than those in elder years waiting to die. Humans only target ghouls that actively seek out and kill them. If a ghoul is laying low and feeding on dead or near-dead individuals, they don't even show up on the ghoul hunters' radar as suspicious.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Siris 2 years ago
I was more talking about the moralities of being forced to follow a biological need, not to do something that will eventually effect your reproduction.

Genetically; if you were to kill your own offspring, you would would not be able to pass along your own genes. Therefore, that behavior would stop after the first generation of it being introduced. What you are stating does not make any sense from a biological standpoint. I can understand that you think it is morality based, but it really isn't. Some species of beetles actually eat their babies if there is not enough food to go around. Is it immoral? Hell yes. But is it logical? Again, hell yes. Would you rather have more babies that would eventually be out competed; or have less babies that are more likely to reproduce?
Posted by Samcoder1 2 years ago
What morality would have any worth, other than a morality that improves the well being of conscious beings? Any other morality wouldn't be desired by anything in the known universe. To claim that an action would improve well being is not a baseless one. It is a scientific one, given that well being is the product of the brain. Our knowledge today, and our future knowledge of neuroscience will clear the air with regards to moral questions. It is quite clear that ripping apart a conscious creature does nothing to improve conscious well being. It is a difficult situation, as the ghouls are only able to eat Humans. It would depend if the satisfaction a ghoul feels supersedes the suffering the human experiences. If it does, then arguably collective well being would be better if the Human was eaten.

Despite this your claim that morality is strictly subjective is completely nonsense. If you honestly believe, you must be equally likely to torture and kill your children than raise them with love and care. You of course would not do this, and so even you don't believe the nonsense you have just given voice to.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
it is taking morality out of the picture
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.