Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

RFD: Murder is Objectively Immoral

Posts: 5,875
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:02:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
RFD for Murder is Objectively Immoral

The Link is here:

This will be a relatively short debate, because there is only one side"s arguments I need to cover one side, and I also don"t have much time to do this, as I have to go to the Louvre Museum this afternoon.

I: Intro

The Burden of Proof is on Pro. For Pro to win, his arguments need to be standing until the end. If it is not, then Con wins, because he successfully negated Pro"s arguments. This means that throughout the debate, Con does not have any arguments, because he doesn"t need to, as the Burden of Proof is solely of Pro.

In this debate, because there is only one side with arguments, I will present all rebuttals, defense, and others. I won"t do the 1-5 thing that I usually do.

II: Pro"s arguments/ Con"s rebuttal/ Pro"s defense/ Con"s rebuttal/ Pro"s defense/ Con"s rebuttal

Argument 1: Morality is Objective

Pro mentions Utilitarianism. Pro says, "By moral objectivism is meant "The view that what is right or wrong doesn"t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. " He says it is like physical facts. Then he shows an example of Utilitarianism. Pro says, "The determining factor is not personal preference or belief, rather, it is happiness." He says he has presented it as a true moral philosophy.

Con rebuts this in three ways. First, Con says that normative ethics is subjective, and the debate is about objectivity, not subjectivity. The second reason is that his opponent does not have a clear framework on what morality actually is, so he cannot say that murder is objectively wrong. Con"s third reason is that normative ethics need metaethics and because he did not provide a metaethic framework, we can"t buy the argument. Con's last question is, how can we full happiness?

Pro defends his case by saying that he had sources which showed objective, when famousdebater said it was subjective, Pro defends by saying that he does not have any sources. He also says that

Pro says he wonders if famous really read his arguments because when Con says that he didn"t have a clear framework, when Con says he has one about the greatest happiness framework.

Next, Pro says that famous only stated about meta-ethics, not actually explaining why Pro needs it. Pro gives a quote, " "Normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, while meta-ethics studies the meaning of moral language""

Pro says that meta-ethics are not needed.

Finally, Pro talks about Con"s question of can we measure happiness and how do we measure happiness. Pro says yes, and no and gives a quote, ""If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure."(3)"

Now lets go onto Con"s rebuttals

Con says that he actually meant that normative ethics cannot be determined objectively without a metaethical system of morality.

Con says that Utility is an objective moral theory, and says, "You cannot say what is moral (normative ethics) if morality doesn"t exist (metaethics)"

Con says that his opponent failed to show why the happiest action is the best action. So he says,"So the question remains, why is doing something that makes most people happy the right thing to do."

Next Con proves that meta-ethics are important, and explains why. Next, in the question Con asked, Pro was correct, but then because of his framework, Con says that we need to vote for Con, which is reasonable.

Pro says that he had proved what is morality and shown that morality exists with his argument, saying that there is no need for a meta-ethic framework.

Pro says that Con misunderstood. He says that morality is what is most desired, and happiness is the universal desire.

Next Pro says that murder is actually not moral, and not the most desired, because it is not the most happiness. He gives many reason, for this, and his argument is not rebutted yet.

Con now makes a burden argument. He says that Pro has proved that murder is wrong, but has not proved his burden.

Next Con says that he needs to prove that morality exists before saying things that are moral and immoral. Con just says that Pro just insists that Utility is objective, which Con says is true, however it is not under the burden. This part of the argument is rebutted. (Seriously, it is boring if you read the same thing over and over again.)

Next Con says that Innateness is not mentioned in the definition of morality and given that my opponent does not expand upon this point. This is reasonable, so I won"t buy this argument from Pro.

Next Con says that Pro didn"t even refute the point about Alam Khan which was in Round 3.

III: Conclusion

Because BoP is on Pro, If only one of Pro"s arguments are refuted, Pro loses. The BoP is unfair, right? But then because in this debate, BoP is on Pro, and Pro"s first argument got refuted, the debate goes to Con. Con refuted argument 2 also. Also, Pro failed to fill the burden and says that murder isn"t objectively wrong in all scenarios which contradicts his burden. I have to give this debate to Con even if Pro beat Con or whatever in the second argument. Vote Con/
Posts: 3,957
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 3:01:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:02:45 PM, fire_wings wrote:
III: Conclusion

Thanks for the vote!

Because BoP is on Pro, If only one of Pro"s arguments are refuted, Pro loses.

It is correct that if one of Pro's arguments are refuted, Pro loses. However the reason for this is because Pro formatted his argument with a premise structure (meaning that all arguments must stand to form the conclusion), not because the BOP was on Pro.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy