The Instigator
Locke_Demosthenes
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shadowguynick
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We are morally obligated to have fun

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 35477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Locke_Demosthenes

Pro

I will be taking the pro of this exciting and "fun" resolution. Let us begin with the unfun points of definition.

Fun - Lawyer jokes, economics, japanese role-playing games, political philosophy. But seriously, activities that one enjoys.

Moral Obligation - Something that somebody ought to do without being forced to do as they ought to do.

Let us proceed to my motley collection of arguments.

As Denis Prager so wisely intones, we have a moral duty to be happy. Because, if we are not happy, or at least do not give the appearance of happiness, you will affect those around you negatively, mainly by making them grumpy as well. So, the logical solution is to have fun once in awhile. This will ensure your wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of others around you by making it easier to be happy. Not that we should live our lives for flashes of pleasure, but that we really are obligated to enjoy ourselves now and then, in the interests of preserving happiness.

Thank you!
Shadowguynick

Con

I'll take this debate. I'm not an expert, but I'll do my best.

Although lawyer jokes are awesome, but are they necessary? Pro states that we should have fun without being forced to, and while most would have fun without being told to it is not a moral obligation for the people around you. Our concept of fun is rather recent. Before people lived. That was the entire point was to live. If you were a peasant you most likely farmed, or worked on a farm. Sex was fun I guess, but it wasn't morally obligated, since people could simply not want to sleep with you. Also do you know where laughter comes from? Our ancient ancestors hunted in groups, and lived in tribes. When there was a startling noise, like a rustle from a bush, someone would go investigate. If the coast was clear they would laugh. Literally that is the entire point of laughter.Speaking of ancient people, did they need to have fun? They lived everyday in a battle of survival. Fun is a new, awesome concept. Not an obligation.
Debate Round No. 1
Locke_Demosthenes

Pro

Thank you for this wonderful debate! Let us now transport to the body of my arguments.

First off, I would like to bring up two points which my opponent failed to refute.
1. Definitions
2. The concept that we have a moral obligation to be happy, or have an appearance of happiness.

Definitions matter because of what a moral obligation is. You do not have to fulfill a moral obligation. It is a standard which you ought to strive for, but by no means required. My opponent argues that the ancient people were not obligated to have fun because they couldn't. That doesn't remove the obligation, because the standard remains. Now, if we have a moral obligation to be happy, then we have a moral obligation to have fun, whether or not we actually can have fun is another story. That is why our founding fathers decided that happiness was not an unalienable right, but the pursuit of happiness was. And having fun once in a while greatly helps pursue happiness.

Thank you!
Shadowguynick

Con

I do not deny that moral obligations need not be fulfilled. I simply stated that as living beings we never were obligated to have fun since the idea of fun wasn't a concept in the history of life until much more recently. However you even stated yourself that an appearance would do. Making others happy could be considered an obligation, but you need not please yourself. But why would we need to be happy? Happiness is our bodies way of rewarding us for doing the right thing for survival. We don't need happiness, as we would survive without it. It is simply a quirk that happens to be pretty good. It teaches us what the right thing to do is in a situation. Therefore we come back to survival, not an moral obligation to happiness. Our founding fathers happy was not the same as we think. Their happy meant simply to live peaceably, without stress. Not with pleasure, but without stress. This is simply a language barrier presented between different times.
I am running out of characters. Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
Locke_Demosthenes

Pro

My opponent's last argument has been quite thought provoking, and I thank him for that, but I believe it necessary to demonstrate the remaining points of inadequacy in my opponent's rhetoric.

First, my opponent has argued that we do not have an obligation to be happy because it is not necessary for survival. I stress again and again, just because we don't have to do something, doesn't mean we aren't morally obligated to do thusly. Our ancestor's who lead dismal existences could still make the choice to pursue happiness and try to have fun in their dreary lives, as they were morally obligated to do so for themselves and their relations.

Second, just because someone has a different definition of happiness doesn't mean that we can't all pursue it. I agree happiness is relative, but this does not refute anything that I have said.

Finally, my opponent has turned this from a debate about fun into a debate about happiness, and thus his entire last argument is non-topical.

Thank you!
Shadowguynick

Con

I'm sorry about the happiness/fun mix up. I thought we were talking about both.
You stress that because we don't need to do something, it doesn't mean it isn't morally obligated. However morals were a way of people to team up, and not kill each other. We think of killing each other as wrong because it doesn't ensure survival. But having fun was never a moral obligation, especially how you explain it. Having fun to ensure good relations with others is nowhere near a moral obligation. Obviously having good relations is a moral obligation, but having fun to ensure it is not necessary. And obligations and necessities synonymous. You can simply do what you can to ensure we have good relations. My opponents second point says to me he didn't understand what I meant. Since happiness is relative, definitions of it have changed and only the more recent including fun. Therefore fun is not necessary for happiness, and by your logic is not necessary for good relations.
I ran of out characters again
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
Ha, yeah. I'm not sure if anyone will.
Posted by Locke_Demosthenes 4 years ago
Locke_Demosthenes
Thank you! It was an epic round. Now I just wish someone would vote...
Posted by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
I didn't have enough characters left, but I meant to also say thank you for debating with me. It's been a great pleasure.
No votes have been placed for this debate.