The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Con (against)
Winning
9 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 2 votes the winner is...
SocialistAtheistNutjob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 428 times Debate No: 60025
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

linate

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.
SocialistAtheistNutjob

Con

Pro has not given a definition of morality. In the interest of time, I will do so.

Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...).

Pro stated "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."

I believe that by this logic, killing and eating another human being is in fact immoral. If there is no end in sight, why would it be okay to kill the person? There is no way of knowing that after murdering/eating the person you will have enough strength to continue your journey.

The only way I can imagine cannibalism being moral in this case is if the other person was already dead. However, that is not Pro's claim.

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

The reason that laws about murder exist is because of morality. It's never moral to kill somebody. It may be practical, or even necessary, but never moral.

Pro has the burden of proof to show that it would in fact be moral to murder and cannibalize a fellow human being under the circumstances.

I look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

a definition of morality was irrelevant, given we undestand what morality means.

my facts would tend to be such that eating the person would give pehaps neough time to be saved. even if it just gave a person more time to live, that is not insignifiant either.

according to the animal kingdom, many animals do not eat each other of the same species. but when tehy are starving, they do. this is common with pigs. we may not be animals, but there is no reason our moral code 'eat or be eaten' in the wild shounldn't be applicable.
SocialistAtheistNutjob

Con

Pro claims that a definition of morality was irrelevant, yet fails to understand the concept.

Pro has also changed the situation from the original.

"my facts would ten to be such that eating the person would give perhaps neough time to be saved."

This was not stated in the original hypothetical situation. The rules cannot be bent to suit to Pro's argument.

Moving on.

"according to the animal kingdom"

This doesn't mean anything. Nobody would ever say "according to human kind" or "according to fish."

"we may not be animals."

Yes we are. (http://io9.com...)

"but when tehy are starving, they do. this is common with pigs."

I'd like a source that states that pigs resort to cannibalism.

"but there is no reason our moral code 'eat or be eaten' in the wild shounldn't be applicable."

This is not a moral code. This is a code of survival. It is no more than advice.

In conclusion, it is not moral to kill another human, and Pro has not said anything that proves otherwise.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

i didn't really add anything new. there' sno clear end in sight, but eating antohe may allow for an end. and even if i added a new rule, should it change anything? is it inherently wrong to cannibalize? that's my question, and con seems to be wanting to avoid it.

here are some animals who cannibalize when hungry
http://boards.straightdope.com...
SocialistAtheistNutjob

Con

"i didn't really add anything new."

Yes you did. The direct result of cannibalism was never introduced until I brought it up.


"and even if i added a new rule, should it change anything?"

New rules change everything.

Here's a story to outline that.

I am walking through the forest unarmed and a leopard attacks me. New rule, I get an AR-15. Now, instead of being the victim, I am the aggressor. All because I changed one rule.


How have I avoided the question?

Let's go back in time to round one. "It's never moral to kill somebody. It may be practical, or even necessary, but never moral."

This debate is not about whether it is wrong to kill and eat a fellow human. It is about whether or not you may morally kill another human. Pro has not given a real argument, and has only compared us to other animals. Animals do not have morals, they do whatever they can think of to survive. Humans do that too, but as I stated before, it may be practical, even necessary, but never moral to kill and eat another human.

The source that Pro has provided is a few random people talking on a forum message board. No sources are used in the message board, so I do not recognize the source as legitimate.

Although I will say something about the claims in the source. The source uses examples of snakes, mice, and insects. None of these animals are able to comprehend morality. The source also failed to mention pigs, which were the animals that made me request a citation.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
"You are alone with somebody on a deserted island, and the only way that you can survive until help comes is to murder and cannibalize the other person. Can you morally kill this person? I argue yes."

That statement would have covered your bases. But then again, you never argued that it was morally okay. You argued that some animals do it.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
I didn't grant you a new rule because the addition to the argument was not stated in the title or the first round. I believe that the analogy I gave was fine because it existed purely to demonstrate the advantage that changing the scenario gives to the changer.
Posted by linate 2 years ago
linate
con didn't show how new rules would have changed the debate, as he seemed to view it as immoral to kill and eat, no matter what. he could have at least granted me as a concession a new rule, and then we could have argued about it.
it woudnt have changed much cause con was against it anyways. con's example showing how new rules change things, then, was a poor analogy.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
I'm honestly baffled that @fuzzycatpotato didn't give me points for S&G
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
A utilitarian christian?(gasps*)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Terridax 2 years ago
Terridax
linateSocialistAtheistNutjobTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that the Pro does not fully understand the concept of morality based on their arguements. The Con had much better spelling and grammar usage, and used them to convay more convincing arguements on the subject. The only time the Pro cited a source it was very unreliable; The Cons sources were much more reliable. Given the "stuck on an island with someone" situation, the moral thing to do would be to do whatever you can to ensure that both of you survive. In a situation where the only thing you can do to survive is eat the other person, it would only be moral to eat them if they've already died, and as the Con pointed out, that is not the outlined situation. I will also add that if it came to a point where you are about to die, a moral and heroic/honorable thing to do is offer your body as food to the other person in hopes of their survival.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
linateSocialistAtheistNutjobTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed hypothetical situaton to not support eating due to no end in sight.