The Instigator
Trapeeze
Pro (for)
The Contender
kwagga_la
Con (against)

Morality: What is Ultimately Good and What's Ultimately Evil for Humans?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Trapeeze has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,268 times Debate No: 107078
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

Trapeeze

Pro

Definition of Good in this context: What benefits our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual' is a combination of mind and body.

Definition of Evil in this context: What damages our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual is a combination of mind and body.

With the definitions understood, we can move on to my opening argument.

Humans from birth till death have to make logical decisions that have good or evil consequences, but what's ultimately good (beneficent) and what's ultimately evil (damaging) for humans?

Morality is also a competition; where a human can be greater than another human, and I think this is the realm where we are to discover what's ultimately good.

Is it natural for sentient species to have the incentive to be parental to the land and animals?

Is there a proper method of sentience?

In attempt to be parental to the land and animals, it's spiritually beneficent to have enforced a Happy Animal Scheme, where animals are treated fairly in accordance to the pain they must endure on farms.

With a Happy Animal Scheme, there is no logical reason, unless a farmer is mentally or physically deteriorating, a farmer should not farm animals.

It would mean that sentience is being approached properly, but, there is a greater harmony of sentient logic and creativity; logic and creativity, not of the farmer, but of the animal itself.

An animal might naturally obey universal fundamentals rather than a Government.

Rather than farming for money, farming to support a small, village population; not for money, but as a means of survival.

Metaphorically using the tool but then not using the tool, focusing on the hand that holds it.

The sentient animal is not meant to be employed by a Government, but to employ itself at times where it is deem necessary.

Based on this idea of sentience, I think we can understand ultimate good and ultimate evil.

What's ultimately good for humans, I argue is logical and creative aptitude; what's ultimately evil is a failure of the aforementioned.

Where in the animal farming example, it's wise to employ a Happy Animal Scheme, it's also wise to employ a Clean Energy Scheme, a Controlled Population Scheme, etc.

If we are to excel and employ all the right schemes, we are being logically and creatively apt.

In a purer sense, to excel, and make all the correct decisions for what's good and what's evil.

My case then is that what's ultimately good for humans is logical and creative aptness, because it takes creative and logical aptitude to make correct decisions. and in making correct decisions, goods we commit can only become greater.
kwagga_la

Con

I accept, thanks for initiating the debate.

Pro starts off with the following: "Definition of Good in this context: What benefits our mental, physical and spiritual health, where 'spiritual' is a combination of mind and body."

Perhaps Pro can clarify his comments explaining whether "ultimate" would be equated with "absolute".

To establish absolute morality is important because this is in direct opposition to the statement made: "Morality is also a competition; where a human can be greater than another human, and I think this is the realm where we are to discover what's ultimately good." If it is absolute, then it is applicable to all and not based on someone"s perception, abilities or opinion (perception and opinion also motivates decisions), it is absolute despite of opinion and perception.

If we consider the capabilities of different humans to establish ultimate morals, would that not be discrimination on the basis of ability? I would like to know whether Pro thinks that discrimination is morally wrong or not. I do not see how discrimination can be good for someone"s "mental" and spiritual" health if they have to suffer discrimination.

Pro uses the example of animals and the care humans should have as responsible people over the animals. Pro argues for the treatment of animals by mankind to be what he considers good, but I would like Pro to expand on this by answering the following questions:

1 Are humans superior to animals?
2. Are Animals and humans equal?
3. Should humans and animals have the same rights?
4. Should all the different animal species have the same rights?

Pro further states: "My case then is that what's ultimately good for humans is logical and creative aptness, because it takes creative and logical aptitude to make correct decisions. and in making correct decisions, goods we commit can only become greater."

Again, I would like Pro to answer the following questions:

1. Consider the following hypothetical proposition: Is it logical to kill 2000 people to save the lives of 1 billion people?
2. Is it logical to kill 2000 animals to save the lives of 1 billion people?
Perhaps Pro can explain these questions in order to rebut his propositions.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 3 years ago
kwagga_la
@TheJuniorVarsityNovice The point is, even if there is absolutely no moral absolutes then there are still absolutes. You should read his post again, it was stated there are no absolutes. I did not ask about absolute morals, I asked about absolutes. Your "could be" argument is not what i asked about.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 3 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
@kwagga_Ia that doesn't work there. It could be the case that there are absolutely no *moral* absolutes. The original assertion is not a moral statement and therefore obviously there's no contradiction. Just because the word absolute is in both assertions doesn't mean they cancel each other out lmao.
Posted by kwagga_la 3 years ago
kwagga_la
@EmeryP Is it absolutely true that there are no absolutes? The answer to that question should show you how hopeless your comment actually is.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
The following contains a good background for this debate:
http://www.bookdaily.com...
Posted by Trapeeze 3 years ago
Trapeeze
I think I've made this debate to be more complex and requires agreement or disagreement with people's arguments.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Could you rephrase the title to make a statement that one could agree or disagree with?
Posted by What50 3 years ago
What50
I think if I had even time to debate this, i'd probably argue more of a utilitarianism stand point of morality.
Posted by EmeryP 3 years ago
EmeryP
Hm, interesting question. When it comes down to good and evil, it's all about context and perspective, there are no absolutes.

If I had to try to find one however, I would believe actions furthering your species extinction would ultimately be evil, and actions which continue its existence would be good.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
there is no purpose to life in death
Posted by Trapeeze 3 years ago
Trapeeze
Agreed, Son_of_Titan.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.