The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

morality=survival truth

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  
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: 12/23/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 98375
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




Con.R1.1 - Restatement of Challenge, (from Comments) :

In Re. Pro.Comment : "im saying survival truth is morality"

As I understand, Pro will argue that Morality can be derived in view of survival.

... just some questions, (as I have no idea where Pro is going with this) :

Con.R1.2 - Does "Survival" Even have a "Moral Value"?

It is not generally accepted that "Drinking Water", or "Eating Bread" - have a "Moral Value". Moral Valuations are heavily dependent on "context".

In the same way, does "Survival" have a "Moral Value" - regardless of "context"? Does a super-virus, or Artificial Intelligence, become moral - causing humanity to perish - to survive? (Regardless of all other facts?)

Con.R1.3 - Is Pro redefining "Morality" - OR - is Pro maintaining the current understanting, but suggesting that "computation of what is moral is possible by considering survival factors".

Con.R1.4 - Is "Survival Morality" - "Virtuous"?

Morality (from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition) :
n. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
n. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
n. Virtuous conduct.

Con.R1.5 - Can Morality be both Eqanimity based AND Survival Based?

Many definitions of morality rely on equanimity as a guiding principle to morality. But would survival-based morality conflict with this principle?

Con.R1.6 - Are "Surivival Morality" and "Justice" Compatible? Or, Mutually Exclusive?

Does a grieved/wronged person have a basis for relief - or are they ultimately subject to "Survival Morality"?

Con.R1.7 - Is Human Morality Distinct from Animal Morality? A.I.?

Often, animal behavior is considered "amoral" - without a moral valuation - but are they considered moral under this definition?

What about self-less acts for the survival of something else? What if someone kills another, to protect the survival of another, (even to protect the planet)?

Con.R1.8 - Is "Suvival Morality" Actually Meaningful?

If "Survival Morality" reduces human life to a "mere reducible quantity" - then I suggest that "Survival Morality" is internally contradicting, actually impairing survival :

1. All Human Life has value.
2. Morality is a value that enriches human life.
3. Morality, seen in view of survival, enriches human life - probably - at the expense of other human life.
4. So, Some Human life has more value than others.
5. So, Morality is a value that enriches some of that human life.
6. So, Morality, seen in view of their survival, enriches some of their lives, at the expense of even more.
2 ! 7. Therefore, Cummatively, Morality's greatest potential is to diminish human life, for the sake of enriching a smaller minority.
8. ... etc, etc.

There does not seem to be "equanimity" in this observation - let alone a way that "morality" contributes an actual, valued, meaning to human life.
Debate Round No. 1


the opposite of survival is suicide..

morality goes to some ones intentions, diseases grow like plants, plants cant just choose to de-evolve back to seed stage becuase it dosnt like life.. dont get caught up in the are stones moral thing, no and you wouldnt blame them for falling on your head

i cant speak for an artificial intelligence, cant it exist without humans? are humans not good for an artificial intelligence to keep around. if the supervirus existence is threatened by humanity and it cant survive on its own whats the point of attack? if the artificial intelligence can exist on its own perhaps it will try to end the threat to its existence, do you blame it? and if thats the case wouldnt humans be immoral?
if a gigantic powerfull highly advanced friendly warrior robot crash lands on earth without possibility of escape, that if threatened or in the face of violence will protect anyone and itself, does it make sense to attack it?

religion is suicide

is a blind man guilty of a crime if passing by "the end of a rainbow" on the way home to his starving family? like an animal is not necessarily intelligent enough to know what its doing is wrong, is a bacteria criminally guilty of surviving?

so your conclusion is that suicide contributes value to human life


Con.R2.1 - What ?

I honestly don't understand what you wrote. It is incredibly difficult to read.

Please rephrase in a way that explains how "Survivability dictates Morality" ... Or ... whatever argument you might be making.

Again - I honestly don't know how to interpret your comments.

Con.R2.2 - Is Suicide Moral or Immoral? A-Moral?

In Re. Pro.R2 - the opposite of survival is suicide.. religion is suicide ... so your conclusion is that suicide contributes value to human life

Although I made no arguments regarding suicide - you seem pretty emphatic about the topic ... is this the actual issue you are trying to address?

Is it immoral for a person to end their own suffering? Do they have this right?

Or, is it immoral for a person to ignore the fact that others suffer like them ... and then choose to ignore the suffering of others, (through suicide, etc) ...

Con.R2.3 - Again - Whose View Point Matters - when Considering Survival?

Are actions taken to ensure survival of self moral?
Are actions taken to ensure survival of others moral?

Con.R2.4 - The Definition of Morality ?

No matter how you spin any of this ... If you grossly misrepresent "morality" as a "binary equation" - you can come up with no meaningful answer.

Morality adds "meaning" to human life, (virtue?) -> because that is the way we defined the word.

We have another word that lacks the "substance" -> "Natural Law".

"Natural Law = Survival Truth" ... is not at all the same as "Morality = Survival Truth".

"Natural Law" is not "Morality" (An entirely different debate perhaps).

Con.R2.5 - Apologies

I am new to the site, and should have picked up on a few hints that this discussion would not be fruitful.

But - just in case the tone changes - I will follow up ... otherwise, we should reset this, and let someone else tackle it.
Debate Round No. 2


no in that case thats justified, survival is based on avoiding pain and death.. survival equal necessary

morality is survival truth, in any case noob..

there is no meaning to add to life, there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy


I see no argument why morality = survival truth.

I can't even interpret any of this, because the grammar is so awful.

no in that case thats justified, survival is based on avoiding pain and death

survival equal necessary

there is no meaning to add to life, there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy


What does any of this mean?
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
though :)
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
we needed more rounds
Posted by ImaWin 1 year ago
The way this debate went down, is beautiful.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
you havnt even tried clown, no wonder you are mad with your miserable failure
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
i like how you cant tackle it yourself and then suggest it can be tackled, gold
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
i mixed up the words artificial intelligence and supervirus in round 2
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
im saying survival truth is morality
Posted by Chris330 1 year ago
what is the debate? Are you saying morality is the result of survival instincts?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
sounds complicated, is it in conflict with what im saying?
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
Morality-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
No votes have been placed for this debate.