Hello all,

I would like to propose a debate on the existence of universal morality. I am using universal morality to mean morality that exists without acknowledgment from a human observer. Assuming that some tangible object like a rock exists without us perceiving it (yes this is a whole different debate I know, but in general I think this is a fine assumption to make for simplicity), universal morality similarly exists in the universe. The reason I put the adjective "universal" is to differentiate what I want to discuss from individual opinions on right and wrong. This isn't about opinions on right versus wrong, it is about there is a right a wrong for any given situation, act, deed, etc.

I know people define morals and ethics differently, but for my purposes when I mention morals I do not necessarily mean a logical conclusion based on empirical data or social order. I view that more so as ethics. I am though saying that there is no right and wrong! Cmon people. That means every bad thing we have seen on TV or read about in books, every evil dictator or disaster falls under my claim.

I would like to keep this sort of short, so I'll propose guidelines of 3 posts each, limited to 750 words. After the first post, each poster has 3 days to reply unless permission given for an extension. Because I am an Admin on the site, I don't want my position to give me an unfair advantage in the debate. I ask that one of the Mods moderate the debate, meaning for the specific debate I will give up all reasonable power to him.

I have tried to explain everything as simply as possible and as straightforward as possible but if something needs clarifying please do ask.

Best,
Jameson

Seeing as how this has been here since the 17th, and no one has responded, I'm here to let you know that I'll do it. I had a blast with the last one!

PS: If anyone else wants this, speak! I like to watch, too!

__________________

I appreciate the offer, VonNemo19 but I have to refuse. I don't think we debate in a productive way, although our last debate was interesting nonetheless. I think I am more apt to the kind of debate with two older men smoking their cigars going "Hmmm, interesting. But how do you justify _____?".

I'm sure someone else will debate with you.

Jameson

Thanks for being honest.

But, this is all you had to say! I can be this person. I am this person.

In the last debate, I admit that I went kinda overboard, but this is because of how I have been taught. I've taken debate before and the primary focus is to win no matter how you do it. Understand, however, that this is not how I like to do business.

Now, for an oath:

I, VonNemo19, do solomnly swear to uphold all integrity, tactfulness, respect for my opponent, and general overall good sportsmanship in the event of being accepted as your challenger in this debate.

Signed,
Your Friend,

Richard.



Give me another chance...Please...

__________________

Hi MHF

Even though Jameson is busy keeping the sight alive, and he's indisposed right now, I really like his proposal. He said that it would be cool to debate it with somebody else.

Any takers?

Read the first post in this thread for the proposal.

__________________

Although I am not going to debate this now, I wanted to clarify my first post some. I proposed that there is no means to analyze the world and come to a moral system that is complete and sound. Obviously appealing to some sort of God giving us morals isn't worth debating because it just becomes about the existence of God.

So to argue the opposing side of my proposal, you would need to show that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" or whatever variant of these you choose exist objectively. Saying morality is subjective doesn't really say much because what good are standards if they cannot be applied between subjects?

Just wanted to expand on what I was trying to propose. I've learned that it's really important to specify what concepts are being discussed in a debate and make sure terms are agreed upon before starting.

1. By objective, must it be agreed by everyone, or the majority?

2. Could you define "moral", please?

Edit: I apologize, I was not aware that you'd modified your first post. I see that you've defined "moral" already.

Whenever you are ready, my friend...

__________________

By objective I simply mean derived from logical conclusions of the world we all live in and not just feelings within one's head. It has nothing to do with being agreed upon or not, it just has to be argued without opinion.

I didn't define "moral", VonNemo19, to say that this word must mean that, only to try to explain what I mean by it. The main idea is that choices made by human beings can be placed into opposite categories of what one should do and what one shouldn't do. I am also assuming that it's given that if morality exists humans should try to do moral things.

I think it's critical to try to minimize the topics and concepts so that the debate doesn't go astray.

I want to begin, but I have a question...

So... You are going to argue that there is not a such thing as a right and a wrong in the universe?

And, conversely, I will contend that there is?

I have no problem with this.

__________________

For universal morality to exist, you must accept that there is a goal of taking the world closer to an ideal.

For instance, if individual A has the opportunity to steal and knows he will not be caught (that is he has the absolute power to steal), it benefits him every time from a completely rational perspective to steal. It is only if individual A believes in a world where depriving individual B of the fruits of his labor is wrong that morality can really exist. Human beings, as rational creatures, have the ability to see an ideal and pursue it. They justify their actions. And as far as I am concerned, this is a uniquely human quality.

So would a rock be able to know morality? No. Because a stupid rock is not rational. But you can. You can see what would be selfish if done to you. And you can choose to avoid such actions, even at your own expense. Therefore, we create universal morality on the basis of identifying what actions are unduly selfish or unduly harmful to the community or to the other individual. And it really does exist.

If you deny this fact, it only tells me you believe it is ok to be selfish. And tolerance can easily become appeasement. You would not be alone.

This is a thread to set the ground rules for the proposal rather than engage in actual debate and discussion. Since the proposal seems to be on the backburner for the moment and since there's a risk that the thread might be seen as a discussion thread, I'm closing the thread.

It can be re-opened if and when the time is right (send a pm to Jameson).

__________________
There are two things you should never try to prove: the impossible and the obvious.

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark. (Michelangelo Buonarroti)

• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.