The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
gata2008
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We can help others by not helping at all (2)

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 1163
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

Please respond to my comments on the last debate.

Most people today say we should help one another and share and such. But a world without suffering does not exist. We must avoid the prevention of suffering as it is an inevitable cycle.

1.The world's attempt to rationalize and stabilize a chaotic world- in its prevention of chaos and suffering, goes on a constant search for what is inherently true in the world, IE the will to truth. (Paul Saurette, Prof Political Theory at John Hopkins University, 1996) The will to truth can only lead to destruction- systematically killing off every new idol eventually turning inward. Nihilism is inevitable- only experiencing nihilism can we escape the current value system and embrace new values.
The great philosopher Frederic Nietzsche wrote in his book 'Beyond Good and Evil' that the attempt to prevent suffering makes us all slaves to the so called good natured freedom. We have an obligation to break free of our current assumption of suffering must be resisted and the mass promotion of human rights as being championed by the assumption of a necessary truth.

2.SPECTACLES OF SUFFERING SERVE AS ALIBIS FOR OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION WHICH JUSTIFY VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION WORSE THAN THE CASE. SEEMING BENEVOLENT ACTORS LIKE THE RED CROSS CAN INSPIRE RACISM AND VIOLENCE WHEN CONSTRUCTING SPECTACLES OF SUFFERING. WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR POLICIES OR WE RISK REPRODUCING THE VERY HARMS WE SEEK TO ALLEVIATE. MY CRITICISM ASKS THE UNDERLYING QUESTION, "AT WHAT COST?"

One is obligated only to oneself- the attempt to perfect ones most utmost self- all other obligations are just illusions.

"From the very first, Christianity spelled life loathing itself, and that loathing was simply disguised, tricked out, with notions of an "other" and "better" life. A hatred of the "world" a curse on the affective urges, a fear of beauty and sensuality, a transcendence rigged up to slander mortal existence, a yearning for extinction, cessation of all effort until the great "Sabbath of Sabbaths"—this whole cluster of distortions, together with the intransigent Christian assertion that nothing counts except moral values, had always struck me as being the most dangerous, most sinister form the will to destruction can take; at all events, as a sign of profound sickness, moroseness, exhaustion, biological etiolation. And since according to ethics (specifically Christian, absolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followed quite naturally that one must smother it under a load of contempt and constant negation; must view it as an object not only unworthy of our desire but absolutely worthless in itself.
As for morality, on the other hand, could it be anything but a will to deny life, a secret instinct of destruction, a principle of calumny, a reductive agent---the beginning of the end?—and, for that very reason, the Supreme Danger?"
~Freidrich Nietzsche, Philosopher, 1872 (The Birth of Tragedy. Translated Golffing, 1956. p. 9-11)
gata2008

Con

You suggest that nihilism is the way out of the destructive totality inherent in the will to truth, but is not nihilism a will to truth in and of itself. The rejection of all truths is itself a truth, albeit a pessimistic one. In fact, nihilism fits perfectly among those truths which you call "destructive" because it destroys all other possibilities for knowing and being in the world. Nihilism is not a clean slate from which we can "embrace new values"—it is a manifestation of a specific value set.

Regarding spectacle, what is not spectacle? Isn't the way that we interact with our family just as much spectacle as the commodification of benevolence that you claim the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups partake in?

I agree with you that one is only obligated to oneself, but I do not agree that this existential statement can be used to justify a nihilist or anti-humanist stance. You are not obligated to help your neighbor when he comes to your door asking for flour. Will you then tell him you are a nihilist and that you must then reject his request? Or perhaps you will politely ask him to cease participating in this spectacle and illusion of the good neighbor?

As for your contempt of morality, is it the only driving force for benevolence, charity, and good will? Maybe the desire to help others comes not from that social spectacle you call morality, but rather from a more authentic experience—compassion.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

Thanks for taking my debate. I'm a (former) novice looking for work on Kritiks.

Answering-

1. "You suggest that nihilism is the way out of the destructive totality inherent in the will to truth, but is not nihilism a will to truth in and of itself."

His purpose was not, as some have been led to believe, to deny any value or meaning to truth at all. That would itself be a circular argument — for if we believe that untruth is preferable to truth because that is a true statement, then we have necessarily used truth as the final arbiter of what we believe.

No, Nietzsche's point was far more subtle and interesting than that. His target was not truth but faith, specifically the blind faith that is motivated by the "ascetic ideal." In this instance it was blind faith in truth that he was criticizing, but in other instances it was blind faith in God, in traditional Christian morality, etc.:

"We "men of knowledge" have gradually come to mistrust believers of all kinds; our mistrust has gradually brought us to make inferences the reverse of those of former days: wherever the strength of a faith is very prominently displayed, we infer a certain weakness of demonstrability, even the improbability of what is believed. We, too, do not deny that faith "makes blessed": that is precisely why we deny that faith proves anything — a strong faith that makes blessed raises suspicion against that which is believed; it does not establish "truth," it establishes a certain probability — of deception. (Genealogy of Morals, 148)

Thus, Nietzsche does not reject all truths, so this argument does not apply.

2. "Regarding spectacle, what is not spectacle? "

I am pretty confused on what your argument is here please clarify. I think you mean 'This is not the only spectacle'. No, that doesn't sound right, please clarify this.

3. "I agree with you that one is only obligated to oneself, but I do not agree that this existential statement can be used to justify a nihilist or anti-humanist stance. You are not obligated to help your neighbor when he comes to your door asking for flour. Will you then tell him you are a nihilist and that you must then reject his request? Or perhaps you will politely ask him to cease participating in this spectacle and illusion of the good neighbor?"

The 'flour' example is flawed. The argument here is that you are not OBLIGATED to help them. The will to truth and power say merely that your will to live is driven to help yourself, and not thy neighbor. Plus, flour is not suffering.

4. "As for your contempt of morality, is it the only driving force for benevolence, charity, and good will? Maybe the desire to help others comes not from that social spectacle you call morality, but rather from a more authentic experience—compassion."

It also comes from the will to power. Also, as I said earlier, all other obligations are illusions. That includes compassion.

Offense-
A world without suffering does not exist. Has suffering been abolished yet, even through our many attempts to decive it? No. The world goes in a constant search for what is inhenetly true.

Current spectacles of suffering are only causing more suffering. If we stop this, we can avoid these problems once and for all. What's worse- spending our lives helping others that doesn't help at all but hurt more- or stopping this infinetly regressive so called 'good-natured' spectacle of the world.

Our morality, and will to truth and power uphold our currently oppressive nature and avoid true obligations.
gata2008

Con

gata2008 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

I am disappointed that my opponent did not respond and forfeit this round. I guess Gata knew I was right. Please review my points and vote pro:

1) The world will always be chaotic
2) Helping makes bigger problems than what they were helping with
3) Any obligation besides helping yourself are illusions
4) Avoid helping, embrace suffering as a natural part of life
gata2008

Con

gata2008 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Pluto2493

Pro

so yet again, my opponent has forfeited this debate, there is no reason to vote for the con. All of my arguments still apply from previous speeches, and my opponent obviously agreed with me. So, all in all, there is really no reason to vote con in this sitiution.
gata2008

Con

gata2008 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
great debate you guys...very intellectual. gotta go with pluto though.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
aHhhhhhh whoops!!!!!!!! my bad rosseau. MAJOR my bad. I thought I was on another debate. Wow, I'm stupid. I thought I was on my Civil Disobedience topic i just wrote. I have 2 windows.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
" I'd say that so far Pro is winning, although it is pretty close."

What Rosseau? That comment was written one day ago. You didn't even hear my arguments, how can you say 'its pretty close but he's winning'. Winning what?

That sounded like I'm mad, I'm not, I'm just confused.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Nice to see some good ole offense arguments. A lot of people try to win on defense, which is much harder. I'd say that so far Pro is winning, although it is pretty close. I like the topic and I will be interested to watch how this develops.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
Pluto2493gata2008Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493gata2008Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
Pluto2493gata2008Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30