Debate Rounds (5)
Secondly, my argument is that morality does not necessarily always aid survivability, and in fact can hinder it. Though we humans evolved with the special capability for empathy and compassion which subsequently translates into morality (which is further molded by culture and ethics of our individual environment), this does not mean we always survive better in life-threatening situations with such capabilities.
For instance, say a bear attacked a primitive village and a baby was inside a shelter and about to be eaten. Obviously, the mother of said baby would no doubt feel obliged to go after and "save" the child (which is dictated by subjective morality). However, logic would dictate that doing so would put both her and the baby in danger of death. Would it not be better to leave the child to its death and for the mother to continue breeding? though this is the most logical approach and insures survival, such an approach would be considered immoral and even sexist. Even such facts of nature such as "survival of the fittest" would dictate that we murder the weak to insure the survivability of the strong, which animals have done for many many years. The problem with such reasoning is again morals, which would hinder such quality of the human species as a whole.
Finally, morals also dictate many things which are completely outside of survivability such as swearing, sexual references and/or explicitness, anger, and even name calling. To say such moral restrictions would bolster survivability would be ridiculous.
Therefore, morality does not equal survivability in either definition or action.
morality is logical, opposite is illogical, belief
you can remove right and wrong from a situation where there is just no head and tail for what is the right thing to do, and so its not about morality
having friends can ensure your survival
So you admit that morality =/= survival?
"morality is logical, opposite is illogical, belief"
No, and I pointed out in my previous argument that morality isn't logical in all scenarios. It can be in certain scenarios, but not enough to merit the claim that "morality = survival".
"you can remove right and wrong from a situation where there is just no head and tail for what is the right thing to do, and so its not about morality"
Firstly, try to use punctuation and properly review your sentences before posting them. Otherwise, I have no idea what your trying to convey in your argument.
Secondly, you say that "you can remove right and wrong from a situation", which is rubbish since the very definition of morality is: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."
"having friends can ensure your survival"
That has nothing to do with morality. Even some animals can have "friends", yet are devoid of morality. Simply having affection for someone does not mean you are a moral person and has nothing to do with morality. You can have many friends and abandon them as soon as times get rough. Even immoral people such as thieves often come in pairs to aid their objective (steal people's money/valuables.)
Take a fictional zombie apocalypse for example. Morals often hinder logic in tough decisions, which is why games like Walking Dead are such difficult and mentally dependent games. Imagine going through an apocalypse where morals dictate your actions! You would be dead within days!
Therefore, morals do not equal survival. Morals could aid survivability within our species (otherwise we wouldn't evolve with such capabilities) but morals do NOT help our survivability in seriously,life threatening situations.
you dont have friends if you are entirely immoral, you dont even speak truth, it would be absolutly impossible
Morality is subjective. What is right in one culture may be horrendously wrong in another. For example, Ancient Spartan Greeks used to leave their newly born children on top of mountains to die if they were weakly. Obviously this would be beneficial for their survival as it would eliminate the weak from the strong, but in today's standards this would be considered immoral.
Moreover, being entirely immoral and having friends are two ENTIRELY different things. Again, your ignoring my previous argument as to immoral people such as thieves and murders still having friends that even help them do such immoral things burglary or murder.
Having a companion has little to do with morality. The only time morality impacts your social life is if two people consider a certain thing differently (morality-wise). In an apocalypse, this would not matter at all. Though trust is beneficial to survival, morality encompasses many many other matters that are subjective to each individual.
how is it more right in one culture.. matter is matter
Nevertheless, let me brake down your semi-English argument:
"die=give up my morality"
"how is it more right in one culture.. matter is matter"
Matter? What do you mean matter? "Substance of the universe" or "a situation under consideration?" Please define. Besides, I never said matter wasn't matter regardless of the definition. And yes, some cultures think some virtues are better than others. If you really have trouble grasping this, do a but of research on Ancient Rome or Greece.
Umm...trust equal form rust? WHAT? And what does "(sIN" mean? Typo or newly discovered element on the periodic table?
I completely realise the above is made up of mostly Ad Hominem attacks but it sounds like your regurgitating your arguments over and over again and they are slowly making less and less sense.
(P.S. Actually, I just looked at your profile and your other debates and I truly suspect your trolling. If you don't make an intelligent argument next turn, I'm leaving.)
any real situation is matter
is it healthy for kids in some cultures to drink battery acid?
trust=dull defence mode=giving away my responsibility, my ability to respond
i have trouble grasping why you think feeding your kid battery acid because the moon is made of cheese is moral
*The more you know*
"any real situation is matter"
Again, this is nonsensical and has no relevance to the question at hand!
"is it healthy for kids in some cultures to drink battery acid?"
"trust=dull defence mode=giving away my responsibility, my ability to respond"
Stop with these crappy arguments. They make no sense whatsoever and make you look stupid. Tell me if this makes sense to you:
'Trust equals boring defence condition equals giving away my duty, my capability to answer.'
I replaced some of the words in your argument with other synonyms and replaced '=' with equal. As you can see, the above makes no sense at all.
"i have trouble grasping why you think feeding your kid battery acid because the moon is made of cheese is moral
Ok, you are either a special from of retard or trolling. Either way, you have proved that you are unable to make logical and comprehendable arguments. Personally, I think you know that I'm making better arguments than you and that your losing, so your resorting to "full retard" and post completely non-sensical arguments. I warned you that if you didn't make a some-what intelligent post this round, I would leave, and because you failed to do so, I am leaving.
Goodbye, this debate has been a major waste of my time and brain power.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.