The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Astal3
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

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 4 votes the winner is...
Astal3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 58873
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person. consider a deserted island hypothetical or maybe stranded in the desert w no end in clear site, or something like that.

the normal rules of not being able to kill others at this point no longer applies.
Astal3

Con

I would like to start my opening statement by saying that morals and logic are two different things. Let's take zombies for instance. You and someone else are trapped inside a room. There is no way out. The only chance either one of you will have for survival is to create a distraction. Now it is the moral thing not to sacrifice this other person as a distraction to save yourself but it is the logical thing to do to survive. Same deal with the island. The fact that it is wrong to kill is very much important and very relevant. In either instance you are taking someone else's life in order to extend your own. Either way you look at it it's a selfish action. Another factor is say you sacrifice the other person but the zombies Catch you anyways, or rescue still doesn't come. Now not only did you kill this other person for your own selfish survival but it was all for nothing. You extinguished someone else's right to life for nothing. Even though it would be the logical thing to kill and eat this other person. Never is it moral. Now if you said is it ok to morally eat this person after they have already died from something else then yes it would be moral. But you are actually taking their life for yourself therefore it is not moral.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

if the amount of life extended is minimal i might agree it is not really necessary. but if yo have no other choice why would it be immoral if you get a decent shot at surving or a significant time? the natural order says keep your species going so we dont kill each other. some animals eat their young when it's clear no one would survive anyway. i might suppose this extends to animals who are like humans and don't normally kill each other, and even to none young species who might be seen as lost causes anyway. in fact it took two seconds to look i up and verify it. pigs each each other when they normally dont when starving.

http://www.timeslive.co.za...
Astal3

Con

Pigs and animals don't set up codes of morality either. Morals are a human construct not a natural one. Animals live in an immoral world according to humanities ideas of morals and do what they need to to survive. Harsh situations is why morals exist. Anyone can sit upon a pedestal and sling their opinions of morals and circumstance but the choice to be moral is easy when not faced with a tough situation. Morals in a lot of aspects go against logic and the natural order of things. Take apocalyptic movies for instance. What is a major theme? The breakdown of humanity. Well what does that mean? It means rape murder. Trapping people and killing them for food. Morality is challenged. Why? Because morality goes against survival. The bible was a guide to morality in a brutal and unfair world. But according to morality you should not kill. It is not your right to take someone's life unless they try and take yours. Morals are separated from logic and natural selection aka. Survival of the fittest. So no morally you can not kill someone for food in a tough situation. despite how logical it might be.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con would surely state that self defense is permissible when killing. this goes against the general notion of 'you can't kill'. the point, there are exceptions to our rules and morals. why can't there be an exception when there's a break down of survial conditions?

con has just argued that true morality should be able to pass the muster of tough conditions. there's a certain laudability to his standard, but it's self imposed and overly burdensome.

the only way we can approach it is to look at hte natural order, as i did in the past post, and ask what makes most sense.

i mean, morals are not always cut and dry. the greeks and man and boy sex and everyone thought it was natural. i'm not saying morality is arbitrary, but it's not always as clear cut as you think. perhaps they weren't lookin at the natural order and deceived theimselves, who knows. but we do know that here and now, while it may seem different tlike the man boy love thing, we know that the natural order and our own reason says it is probably permissible to kill and eat anoter person in those conditions.
Astal3

Con

"con would surely state that self defense is permissible when killing. this goes against the general notion of 'you can't kill'." Pro continuously ignores the parameters of the original statement. The statement says " if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person". Not is there ever an instance where it is moral to kill and then eat another person to survive. Once again we are arguing the original statement not a circumstance of the statement. Going by the original statement as is is wrong. Morally you can't just kill someone to eat them. Morals say do not kill not don't kill unless its a bad situation. Do not kill period. Self defense is a circumstance of the moral not the moral its self but unless this other person attacks and attempts to kill you self defense is not applicable. Once again I will state that morality is Separate from survival. The source my opponent used was based on an incident deemed immoral. The pigs didn't eat each other in the wild they ate each other because they were pinned up and left. To humans that is animal abuse which is immoral. My opponent continuously uses morality in an inappropriate form by comparing it to logic and survival. And tries to cling to a small exception to the moral as a blanket statement to the moral itself. I have provided credible logical evidence of the difference between morals and survival. While my opponent only tries to apply morals in an inappropriate context.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AngelofDeath 2 years ago
AngelofDeath
WUT...

...Did i just read???
Posted by Astal3 2 years ago
Astal3
And personally that applies. But she was arguing if morals as a foundation allow you to kill for food. And in fact they do not. There is a difference between a societal application of morals and a personal application. Me and her also had a debate on the golden rule which is morals. She was right to an extent but morals as a foundation do not permit killing whatsoever. There is a difference between survival and morals. This is often exposed in apocalytic survival movies.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
RFD:

Spelling and grammar were not an issue. I used that vote solely for its one point tally towards the vote.

I give a slight edge to Pro, as she premise was "is it morally wrong".

In the midst of self preservation, in a survival situation, morals do not apply. Therefore, it cannot be 'morally wrong' (or right) because no morals apply in this situation.

(if you truly believe you have no hope for survival, as summarized by Pro's premise)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cAstal3Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side established a moral system, making it impossible to prove morality. Thus, Pro fails BOP.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cAstal3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had bad spelling.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
dairygirl4u2cAstal3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: This was actually quite an thought-provoking read but I'd have loved you both to have gone deeper into the topic. First off, spelling & grammar obviously go to Con. Secondly, Con not only made his own good contentions but successfully refuted Pro. An example is where Pro brought in self-defence, which nearly got me on-side. However, self-defence is different because it's that person that's threatening you, not external forces. Con made the very strong point that while it is certainly logical for survival purposes, this doesn't make it moral, which is the topic of the debate, and while Pro did make a good attempt to refute it, Con took the cake for argumentation. Thanks!
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
dairygirl4u2cAstal3Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments