The Instigator
Debater2018
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ultimate good and Ultimate Love are metaphysical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 944 times Debate No: 117046
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Debater2018

Pro

When watching formal debates on the subject of morality, It is often asked by the one opposing Objective morality, To have the other debator to define what he/she means by 'good' or 'goodness'.

The highest meaning of 'goodness' in the secular world is to contribute to the flurishing of a species.

However, It is irresistible for the unbelieving to migrate into the metaphysical realm and attempt to place their moral flag there. The reason they feel the need to do this is because moral 'good' can only be secularly grounded in either Absolutes or Universal usage. In Absolutes, The prohibitions or prescriptions are not given the luxury of being determined to be bad or good determined by the situation. A violation is a violation no matter what the circumstance. Universalism is a morality that helps the the human community to keep functioning. Justice for the least of these in the human community is most often delayed till the afterlife.

What we mean by 'goodness' in formal debates on morality is what the Philospher named Kant called; the 'Good Without Qualifications. He said that when this 'good' is found in a person, That it is not just good in relationship to the judgment of the person, But that it is good IN ITSELF. That it is intrinsic and not relative to our inclinations. This is really a roundabout way of saying that this element is metaphysical.
The entire article 20th WPC Moral Goodness Alone Is 'Good Without Qualification' is a great read at www. Bu. Edu

Ultimate Love, In the secular sense, Is traced back to instinct. The drive to save a mate. The drive to save one's offspring. The drive to take a certain mate for reproduction.
Secularists have tried to portray that they have the technology to determine that love itself has been found to originate in the brain by means of brain scan images. These image results are of course the after-affects, (the element). . . . Not the agent. . . Love.

USA Today June 25th 2016 published a helpful article titled: These Are the 7 Types of Love
In this article they listed the 7 Greek words for the different kinds of Love.
1. Eros- sexual, Passionate
2. Philia- friendship, Goodwill
3. Ludus- fun, Playful, Flirting
4. Philautia- self love (can be negative or positive)
5. Storge- familial love, Between parents and children
6. Pragma- such as in arranged marriages
7. Agape- unselfish concern for the welfare of others

Agape, The ultimate love, Is like the ultimate good. Both are impossible to isolate, But we know they both exist.

'He that loveth (agapao- to love much) not. . Knoweth not God, For God is love. ' (agape- unselfish concern for the welfare of others. ) 1 John 4:8. Notice how the Koine Greek of the New Testament makes distinctions for their different words in the passage.

In summary, The simple word we use so often 'good' if pushed to it's highest meaning, Can only be found in the metaphysical realm. Likewise, The simple English word love, If pushed to it's highest meaning 'agape' can only be found in the metaphysical realm.
Sonofcharl

Con

"Ultimate good and ultimate love are metaphysical".

A truism.

In so much as all are concepts and reality is unknown.

Brain held, Brain assimilated and brain generated information.

All to be restored, Re-assimilated and regenerated over and over again.

And death and all energy diminishes rapidly and cannot transcend it's conceptual sphere.

And the universe is none the wiser.

Maybe we think we are wiser, But wisdom is much the same as any other thought.

And goodness and love are assumptions, Based on our responses to basic physiological processes.

And metaphysics is something we dream up as we wile away the tedium of existence.
Debate Round No. 1
Debater2018

Pro

You have already conceded to the Affirmative (Pro) of this DEBATE twice. Once in your first sentence and another in your second sentence.

In your first sentence you stated that the proposition 'Ultimate Good and Ultimate Love Are Metaphysical' were a truism. A truism, According to Webster's Dictionary, Is (an undoubted or self evident truth; one too obvious to mention. ) This is a total surrender of the DEBATE.

The second concession you made were to state that all concepts and reality (itself) were unknown. With this admission it makes one wonder why you even signed on to DEBATE.

I am not going to add any more Affirmative (Pro) material in this session when there is no need to. I would hope that when another person in the future signs on to deny a proposion, That they do not start out in the Affirmative (Pro).
Sonofcharl

Con

If we look at definition, Then your opening proposition is undeniably a truism.

If we regard your second round, It is clear that you have misread and misunderstood a key statement of my opening gambit.

And then disregarded all other content.

A much used tactic on D. D. O.

Reality versus conceptuality, Or vice versa.

Example 1:
There are no types of love, But there are physiological responses to individual situations, Which can be interpreted in as many ways as we care to imagine.

Therefore:
Creating a 7 article list falls way short of actual potential and merely panders to the human need to make lists and categorize thoughts.

Example 2:
Goodness is a mental contrivance, That has no bearing whatsoever on universal reality. There is no greater authority to judge human actions.

Goodness, Love and metaphysics are simply the clicking and whirring of the brain.

In base terms, Love is real. But the word love is an overused and misused representation of reality.

Good and bad are assumed differences in human behaviour and human actions.

Metaphysics is to much time on our hands. Wiling away the tedium of existence and coming up with pointless nonsense.

Therefore:
There are no such things as ultimate goodness, Ultimate love or metaphysics.

Thereby:
My truism is real and your truism is merely conceptual.
Debate Round No. 2
Debater2018

Pro

Since you already conceded that the Proposition is a truism [even though you meant only mine and others understanding of it] you surrendered the debate.
It does no good to try to back-peddle and claim that your understanding was in reality and mine was in conceptualism. For to your understanding, Both are just make believe.

It also does no good to deny that the historical 7 Types of Love do not exist. . . . . And in the same posting round. . . . Declare that these 7 terms are physiological reactions to stimuli.

When one denies this Proposition, The only cover they have to take refuge in is Naturalistic Evolution. The problem in this is that the stimuli from metaphysical good and metaphysical love that causes theses certain physiological changes in the person, Contradict the Naturalistic Evolutionary mantra of 'survival of the fittest. '

Because 'Ultimate Love' and 'Ultimate Good' exist and we hold them up as examples, They had to have their origin outside the Naturalistic Evolutionary process.
Sonofcharl

Con

Reality by definition cannot be make believe. Conceptuality by definition is make believe.

Pro has no argument beyond Round 1. They simply propose something that by definition is undeniable, And then rest on their laurels.

The basis of my argument from the start was the differentiation between the simplicity of reality and the futility of conceptuality.

There is no purpose whatsoever in attempting to refute Pro's truism. I would simply be attempting to rewrite the English dictionary.

Anyone can sit about, Compile a list and suggest that this is love and this is love and this is the best type of love.

Similarly anyone can sit about and come up with the notion that, This is good but this is ultimate goodness.

Oh! And let's call all this, Metaphysics.

Ultimate good, Ultimate love and metaphysics are human contrivances, That occur nowhere other that inside the human brain. Therefore realistically it is ridiculous to suggest they have their origins "in the naturalistic evolutionary process"

I have made no reference to naturalistic evolutionary processes whatsoever. This is to broad a subject to try and elucidate in this simple argument, Other than to say that current human physiology is probably the result of such processes.

My argument rests on the assertion that there is a clear and real difference between physiological conceptuality and physiological reality.
That is to say, The differentiation between, What is thought and said and what doesn't need to be thought and said.

Pro makes the merest of references to religious concepts but does not relate them directly to their asserted philosophy.
Using theological references to substantiate philosophical notions is extremely tenuous to say the least and inevitably opens up a whole new can of worms. As Pro does not attempt to clarify their theological standpoint I therefore can see no necessity in addressing this subject either.

Similarly. Pro touches on the concept of morality, But fails to extend this idea. As a realist I will simply add morality to the list of brain held conceptualities, Along with good, Love and metaphysics.

In conclusion:
Pro makes a philosophical statement and opens with a good first round. I propose a philosophical counter argument which appears to stymie Pro completely. From there on in the main thrust of Pro's defence, Is their attempt to negate the validity of my position altogether, Rather than the extension and elaboration of their own position.

I cannot deny a truism, But I can oppose a truism by proposing an alternative truism. I consider this to be a reasonable and valid approach to this debate, Given the nature of Pro's proposition.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2 3 years ago
WW2GuyWhoLikesWW2
For my gf of 4 years, We work well not much arguing at all maybe once every 4 months but even then it's just tiny stuff. I say love isn't perfect and utter emotional connection that leads to a relationship forming and lasting a long time is rare without kinks. But happiness above all I say. As long as youre bringing in the money, Not bothering others, And not working yourself to the bone. You should be happy. Let em be.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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