The Instigator
GambitGamer
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
kventling
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Why is killing bad?

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 3 votes the winner is...
kventling
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 48697
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

GambitGamer

Con

Why is it 'bad' to kill someone, steal, etc.? We all die anyways. Why are there any rules at all? Technically, it makes no sense, even though I'm against it (because of my religion.) But to someone without a religion, it makes no sense whatsoever.
kventling

Pro

I accept the PRO side on the resolution that "In the absence of god/religion, murder is still morally wrong."

I would like to start us off with some definitions, and we can both present our arguments in the next round.

Merriam-Webster defines murder as the "premeditated killing of one human being by another". I think this is an acceptable definition for this debate.

Leaving the term 'god' open to meaning any/all deities from any/all religions, past or present.

I would like to thank my opponent for opening this debate and look forward to his beginning argument.
Debate Round No. 1
GambitGamer

Con

So, first off, lets go to the root of killing being 'bad' in the first place. I'm guessing most people would say morals. Well, back to my first point, why are there morals at all? If everyone is going to die anyways (or even if we lived for ever), there is no reason to make rules about something because you deem it as 'bad'. It makes no sense to even have the word 'bad', unless you have morals for a reason (eternal life in my case.)
kventling

Pro

Resolved: In the absence of god/religion, murder is still morally wrong.

My opponent has made the claim that absent divine guidance, there is no logical foundation for the legal prohibition of and/or the social taboo around. Along with this assertion, he further claims that morality itself is nullified in a god-less reality.
I intend to discredit these claims, as well as providing positive evidence in favor of the resolved. I will do so under the premise of the following contentions:

1.Basic Morality is an Evolutionary Advantage.
2.Murder is Immoral Especially in the Absence of the Divine.

1.Basic Morality is an Evolutionary Advantage.

Merriam-Webster defines morality thusly- "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Under this widely accepted definition, morality describes a set (any set) of decisions on what behaviors are deemed "good" or "bad" by a particular person.
In practice, individuals reward those performing "good" behaviors (or behaviors favorable to that individual) in a variety of ways (e.g. trust, sharing, cohabitation, grooming, gifting) and likewise punish those performing "bad" behaviors via fight/flight or social ostracization.
This is highly beneficial to any group dwelling species, such as humanity. Those who cooperate in this "Silver Rule" type of way are able to easier conceive and raise children, thus passing on their genetic predisposition towards cooperation, as well as social training through example. Because of its reproductive advantage, this construct of "Morality" is rapidly spread through high thinking social species like homo sapiens.

2.Murder is Immoral Especially in the Absence of the Divine.

Now that we understand "morality" insofar as being that each individual has a set of ideas about what is "good" or "bad" ( and how that can be mutually beneficial ), We have a frame of reference in which to declare that the act of murder is universally morally wrong especially in the absence of the divine (and any afterlife).
Without the concept of an eternal afterlife, death becomes an altogether more final thing. All observable evidence indicates that there is no consciousness prior to death. So upon death, you cease existence entirely as a self-conscious entity. While this fate has so far proved unavoidable, the act of brining it about intentionally is the most heinous act. In this brief chance to observe the universe, the thing you would seeming most want to avoid is to have to cut your observations off early. Since each of us wishes to personally avoid being murdered, it becomes mutually beneficial to extend that morality to everyone. This gives the strength in numbers that would help to deter those who would wish to skirt that morality.

I believe the contentions I have set forth here would sufficiently rebut any arguments made by opponent so far. I look forward to the response.
Debate Round No. 2
GambitGamer

Con

You make some good points, but all in all, morals are not real. They are just a thought that you have that has no affect over the outcome of your eventual death. Therefore, there is no reason to have them. I don't believe you can present any proof that this isn't the case. So here, try to answer this:

Why shouldn't I kill someone?

There is no answer. The only reason I can think of is because it's 'bad' which, again, isn't a valid reason.

(Take all of this in the context that I would never kill someone, unless forced. I just want to know why other people think it's wrong, or anything is wrong in that case.)
kventling

Pro

kventling forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by GambitGamer 2 years ago
GambitGamer
Isn't that what I said below?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Gambit; you are not moral you are obedient. Genuine moral and ethical behaviour don't need any motivational promises of rewards, or inhumane sadistic threats of eternal torture. A believer is not rewarded for moral and ethical behaviour, but for their blind faith. You won"t be judged according to your deeds the way you should be. It doesn"t matter what an evil, selfish, sadistic, bigoted victimizer you were in life. All sins can be forgiven if you but believe.
Posted by GambitGamer 2 years ago
GambitGamer
For the first thing:

Morals are important to God + I love God and want to please him (and also spend eternity with him), so I do what he wants (have morals) = I have morals (Or, what I consider to be morals. You could argue that I am only doing what I do to get to heaven, but that would not be true.)

For the second thing:

Like I said above, I don't do it so I can get something back. I am a Christian because I admitted that I am a sinner and turned away from my sins (even though I still do some, God forgives.) Eternal life comes with being a Christian. Nothing that I did before or after becoming a Christian will affect my going to heaven. I have morals because God wants me too.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
To Gambit:...

How in the world do you think the existence of eternal life solves the seeming vacuousness of morals?

If I get a really tasty cookie for doing something, we don't call my action moral. Punishments/rewards have NOTHING to do with morals. So how in the heck does the existence of a deity that will punish you/reward you according to your actions in this life somehow magically create morals?

Either you think that morals do have actual substance, or they don't. But religion has nothing to do with the matter.

And, frankly, I am horrified by people like you. So you only do good things because God is going to give you good things? That isn't any better than the bratty child who only does good things so that Santa gives them presents. For the love of god (lol c wut i did thar), make your own morality and don't base it off of pretty presents.
Posted by ZebramZee 2 years ago
ZebramZee
There is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' as pertaining to actions or people. These are just made up words which have no basis in reality. I can make up a word as well. I can make up a word called 'yutwak' and say it describes actions that have an intrinsic 'catness' or 'dogness' or some such nonsense. Yet because I can come up with some nonsense word like this doesn't mean there are any actions in the world that have such a quality nor that we can perceive of such things.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 2 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
GambitGamerkventlingTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con asks for a moral standard outside of religion that would make murder bad, and Pro provides one. Pro shows that murder is bad independent of religion, as (1) there are pragmatic benefits to morality, and (2) murder is the end of everything if there is no afterlife. Conduct goes Con since Pro forfeited the final round.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
GambitGamerkventlingTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
GambitGamerkventlingTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro first reason concerning its evolutionary advantage remained unaddressed by Con. Con argued that morality is irrelevent, but Pro was talking about how it is evolutionary bad, and not morally bad. Because he ignored this reason, Con also loses points in conduct.