most people know right from wrong.
Debate Rounds (4)
many people in the past have thought that rape was ok. most people of one time call what we call rape acceptable. you can call different things by one name but they are still different and your doing something that is quite silly and pointless when you do that. if we change the definition of rape to allow for what we would have to call "justifiable" rape right now (as we consider the act rape) it doesnt change whether or not we are right in the act it just changes what we are calling it and means the exact same thing. some people change the definitions of words to make you think they are saying something that they are not i guess. and its pointless. no matter what you say, the meaning of what you say is all that matters. not the words used. if i were to say that healing people is wrong and my definition of wrong is actions that bring about good results then you would probably call what im calling wrong righteousness. and what i was saying was actually true by everyone but i made them think i was saying something that they disagreed with by using my own definition of a the word wrong. i could say a fish is a mammal and by mammal meaning the definition of fish but it wouldnt change the fact that a fish is the definition of fish. it doesnt change what it is. yes we have (for SOME time) called rape wrong but our definition of rape has changed so much that what was considered justifiable sexual intercourse is now considered rape so with our definitions rape has not always been wrong. now how can we know that "rape" is wrong while they think what we call rape is righteous? explain that one. unfortunately for you our moralities have changed much more than once. much more than a thousand times. probably millions of times. what percent of people can know everything when it comes to right and wrong? if you believe in moral progress you should believe that most people do not know right from wrong. every moral progress starts out with a handful of people who convince the their world of it. most people dont change on their own and have no premises for their moralities. if they have no premises their moralities are blind faith and they do not consist of knowledge therefore they do not know right from wrong. the conscience is proven to consist of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth so it is never smarter than your mother father or nurse. Bertrand Russel in Why I A Not A Christian. it has also been proven that a lot of people use the part of the brain that deals with emotions when trying to determine right from wrong instead of the part of the brain that deals with reasoning. ever watched or read about "the science of evil" or "the experiment"? or anything about the brain? i doubt it.
hate to see a christian believing that people know right from wrong. those who believe we know right from wrong dont see a need to change anything. people like me disprove your "facts" about right and wrong.
you said " the best morality is the kind that you know will benefit you the most. ok so you do think i should do whatever i want and call it righteousness. the best kind of morality i think is the kind that benefits both you and the group or society if you will. i dont think morality should be as selfish as you seem to think it should be. apparently one of us doesnt know right from wrong. also you said morality is based on science and then you are saying we should make up our moralities. contradiction. the imagination is not scientific. its the exact opposite of observation. you also said " the best kind of morality is the one made up by you". so you actually think everybody making up their moralities is good? most people are not smart enough. to have a good morality you have to know what is fair. everybody disagrees on what constitutes a fair fight. do you stand them up when it goes to the ground? some say yes some say know because it puts grapplers at a disadvantage. some say anything goes and some want ground rules. i could go on alll day. to know what is fair for a human you must answer many questions no one is even trying to answer.
question one what are we? the questions that this is asking are are we spiritual beings that have free will or are we physical beings that do what we do because something is causing us to do it. the answer to this will determine whether or not criminals deserve to suffer. some dont believe in free will and some do so how can they both know right from wrong. also this is asking how smart are we. do we know right from wrong is the next question that is included in what are we. some think we know right from wrong while smart people dont think we do as we all contradict each other which proves that belief wrong. the other questions i can think of right now are what are we in relation to each other and why are we here. what are we in relation etc. is asking are some less deserving than others and stuff like this and everybody disagrees. some peoples moralities dont follow that racism is wrong because blacks and others are less deserving than we are. i dont agree but clearly most people dont know right from wrong. and most people in the past were racist. they contradict us. you still have yet to comment on the contradictions ive brought up. why are we here determines what we should do with our lives. then you have to prioritise morals and that is difficult for most to do as they fumble around and screw it up and once again they all contradict each other which you have no rebuttal for apparently.
you say morality is to go along with our self interests. i want many things that i shouldnt do what i have to do to acquire them. your basically saying i should be a sociopath. you havent mentioned others once in telling me what a morality is about. if everyones morality was about self interest there would be chaos because everyone doing whats best for themselves would create chaos because there is a conflict of interest. that means conflict cruelty and many other things that most of us dont want here in america. are you from another country? you say wrong is what goes against the self interest of other people. everybody has different interests and moralities so your saying i have to treat people according to their moralities or im wrong while i should do what serves my interest which is a contradiction. how can i do what i want and what someone else wants. conflict of interest as ive stated. you say there is no ultimate morality. that means we do not know morality as we are never finished learning so we do not know all of right and wrong. i agree and think you for supporting the con side.
ok dude. you said something about morality in politics. when any topic arises most people have every possible answer to the question is this policy right or wrong and why. they give every possible answer to any question. clearly we dont know right from wrong when it comes to politics because we cannot agree on whether or not a politician is good or bad. if we dont know good from bad we do not know right from wrong. you say we need oganized morality but you also say the best morality is the one made up by you. contradiction.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu... that shows that morality cannot be taught using Science. But yes you do prove a point that by saying: "MOST people blindly accept MORALITIES at their mothers knee." And yes of course we have free will and this means we can make up our morality throughout time consciously and subconsciously. We can choose to do whatever we want but we must make sure to "Work how the World Works" or this leads to our "EVENTUAL FALL" from those we have hurt due to the violation of their self interests and STABILITY that we took away due to wronging them. We have to make sure that our morality measures up to our own personal standards of living. Is our morality "SAFE" and is it "STABILE" if your morality is purely based off someone elses then you are nothing more then a follower of a systematic form of control. If your morality does not go in accordance with your self interests then it's just SYSTEMATIC CONTROL designed to punish yourself at the benefit of others. Selflessness is as wrong as Selfishness, so you have to know where to draw the line. Some people cannot operate their own lives without a "Instruction Manual". Hell even some people that have an "organized morality" still somehow get themselves into excessive amounts of trouble with family and other strangers due to their inability to know how to control themselves; such people totally fail at keeping themselves stable. They do not know their place, or how to "play their cards right".
we have wars and conflicts with our friends all the time because we do not know right from wrong. with every conflict their is at least one person in the wrong. if one wasnt wrong then there would be no conflict. other countries think we are wrong and we think they are wrong. this is why we fight. if most people knew right from wrong there would be no war. you think the people in other countries who fight us think they know they are wrong? bull squirt. the majority of people i dont think would fight if they knew their country was wrong. and lets look at the moral stupidity of the past. a "perfect" god once commanded the destruction of cities and the killing of men women and children so the israelites could live there. and this god was perfect at one time and still is today actually. you told me that. also look what we did to the indians and the blacks? if that stuff was wrong then they didnt know right from wrong because they all thought they were right. they thought they knew right from wrong so how do you know you know right from wrong. people are credulous and want to believe they know right from wrong. people generally believe what they want to believe. thats why believers are always aking "have you heard the good news". lol i have yet to see you make a point. just blind faith coming from you but ill keep reading. i expected a challenge. if i lose it will only be because of my grammar.
how is making up a morality knowing right from wrong? you said we have free will and we can make up our moralities over time. free will doesnt prove we know right from wrong and you failed to make a point here also. what a shocker. but making up our moralities isnt learning whats right from wrong. imagining is the opposite of observation. without observing and learning how can you come to know what is right from wrong? thats just making up what we want to believe is right and wrong. if we were righteous our lives would be much harder because the right way is always the hardest way. most of our past has been nothing but countries locking people up for stealing and going to other countries to steal land and money legally. its the same thing yet one is said to be right and one wrong. or was at least. humans think they know right from wrong. but clearly they dont as they all contradict each other. explain to me how murder can be right and wrong. if it isnt then most dont know right from wrong as they disagree on every other precept. if it is right and wrong then there is no point of morality because whatever we think is right is right. guess ill come rape your wife and put your kids on the black market for money because it would benefit me after i convince myself that its righteous. and in your opinion it will be because whatever we think is right is right. there are people who would have said this is ok in the past and you say they know right from wrong so i guess if i wanted to do that i could in your opinion. your wrong for speaking your mind i guess because people in other countries kill for that if it goes against what they believe and they think they are well within their rights.
you have still failed to provide a single rebuttal. if you win i will assume that most people on this site are biassed and just wanted you to win so they voted for you. this is the biggest win in a debate i have had yet on this site and ive debated with teenagers before. i have more points to prove but not enough space. ill leave you with this. how can most know right from wrong when their are thousands of different combinations of moral precepts and when maybe 5 percent of people agree with each other being the closest thing to a consensus? you know what. im done here. clearly i have won and there is no need to continue this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
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.