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: 1,266 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 21 through 24 records.
Posted by Son_of_Titan 3 years ago
Son_of_Titan
Living for the sake of life has no meaning or fulfillment. In order for life to have meaning, it first needs a purpose.
Posted by Trapeeze 3 years ago
Trapeeze
Logical and creative aptness best describes the qualities of a pursuant of an ultimate good, because rather than staying alive, which is good, this sentient being stays alive goodly.

There's no use just staying alive, but also being agile, and making the right decisions, is ultimately good.
Posted by Trapeeze 3 years ago
Trapeeze
"From my perspective. And probably all living things. The ultimate good is to stay alive. The ultimate evil is not to."

I think that this is general good and evil descriptions, but ultimate good is more aptness in that department.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
From my perspective. And probably all living things. The ultimate good is to stay alive. The ultimate evil is not to.
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.