CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If I was an idealist, I would be a complete anarchist, but since I am cynical about human nature, I think we need laws of some sort to keep people tearing each others throats out. But the ideal of course would be to have no laws, but the world is not ideal.
If there are no laws, nothing is illegal, and when nothing is illegal nothing is punishable. Thus when someone commits a crime, the person who was affected by this crime will take matter into own hands, and make sure the criminal gets his punishment - This method can and most likely will get ugly.
Whether I believe that is kind of irrelelvant, because reality is that people commit crimes, and those crimes would be unpunishable by law in a world where everything is legal.
It's actually very relevant. If you believe that laws actually prevent crimes, then it validates you choosing this side, but if you don't it would not.
Well of course, no problem. What made you read our discussion again after .. I would say all this time, but that makes it sound like years, even though it's been a couple of weeks but I bet you know what I mean?
I still get responses on this debate, because someone started up a new argument on it. One time while looking for the new arguments, I decided to re read mine, and by way of them, yours. I then realized what sense you were making, and honestly felt kind of foolish that I had had such a lapse in judgement.
Jungelson you are wrong. A society without control is not even called a society. Which is the best way to set social order and to make sure that crossing the limits is wrong apart from law ? Guess what, there is no other way. And you would probably say "who says we need control and order?" Well I don't accept it because indeed we do need it. Having no control means everyone has the freedom to do whatever they like. This would apply for positive acts like no limits for research, achieving goals and dreams but on the other hand don't forget that educational failure would go up, crime rates would go up, there would be less qualifications and definitely less capable rulers(if any, as a lawless society has no common ruler). This would then lead to chaos in different structures starting from unavoidable civil war to extinction of critical thinking and changes in human feelings about what is right and wrong(if any). So no dear friend, a limitless purge's long term disadvantages of society as a whole would outweigh the short term advantages of a few and would lead to self destruction for humanity.
You advance an argument as to why laws are necessary to maintain that status quo. Not so sure that proves that laws are actually necessary in general. To do that, you would need to prove that the status quo itself is necessary.
I even believe in self defense, individual rights, corporations are NOT people, libertarians have a great philosophy, and after all of this I STILL think there SHOULD BE FUCKING LAWS!!! Without laws:
1. There wouldn't be countries
2. Every reason the police exist would be ignored because breaking any current made law would be allowed, i.e. murder, thievery, etc. and even I believe in the police being allowed to take care of that, despite my belief in even things like self-defense or grey hat hacking. I think no one in their right mind should ever challenge that idea.
3. It's needed to keep our species out of the dark ages. Think about it, most of the countries with more laws are more civilized. That's a fact. China = civilized, US = civilized, North Korea = civilized, South Korea = civilized, Canada = civilized, Britain = civilized...
But what about Mexico? They really have it together right now don't they... NOT!!!
1. Prove that this would be bad, inherently, and you have a point. Otherwise, you have just observed that countries need laws to exist.
2. The police would not exist. They could not protect people; they also could not hurt them. You seem to be under a delusion that nations and their law enforcement infrastructure do not enact their own form of organized, "justified" violence.
No idea should be impervious to interrogation, least of all the ones we take for granted. Would a return to survivalism really be the worst thing for the species at large? It does just fine for other species.
3. "Dark ages" is purely subjective. This is perfectly demonstrated that you think highly oppressive regimes are "civilized". Notably, Mexico has laws and probably at least as many as most "cilivized" nations; the difference lies in its capacity to enforce them.
It would be bad for species survival and here's why:
1. Prove that this would be bad, inherently, and you have a point. Otherwise, you have just observed that countries need laws to exist.
1. Technology has increased life spans for a fuckton of time compared to what it was in cave man days.
2. People aren't going to survive as easily, on an equal level, if someone with cancer always is left in the forest to get eaten by bugs, without medical treatment.
3. The more primitive society is, the more war there is because the more each tribe has to compete with others to survive. Eventually, that just would turn back into pack animal war.
4. We'd have more disease. If you look at tribes in Ethiopia, they have a fuckton of disease. So much, in fact, that they have some of the highest levels of infant mortality rates on earth. That's because they don't have civilization. And just look at all of the tribes in such countries that kill each other.
So, I think part of maximal survival is civilization, in order to organize all of that. In order to maintain that, one needs laws.
3. "Dark ages" is purely subjective. This is perfectly demonstrated that you think highly oppressive regimes are "civilized". Notably, Mexico has laws and probably at least as many as most "cilivized" nations; the difference lies in its capacity to enforce them.
Highly oppressive regime are civilized. Civilized is a component of my definition of good, not the whole definition. Civilized just means a higher organization of society, in order to maintain society. Can society be too civilized in the wrong way? IMO yes. But I also believe a certain amount is needed, in order to have law.
2. The police would not exist. They could not protect people; they also could not hurt them. You seem to be under a delusion that nations and their law enforcement infrastructure do not enact their own form of organized, "justified" violence.
I agree with you. The government has in fact "neutralized" the population in the US, as far as I know, at least a few times in certain areas. I'm even against oppressive governments, especially doing exactly what we can probably both agree on. But I'm just saying that there are other types of crime besides what the government does. Even if the government is evil, it usually still wants to get rid of crime (other than a totalitarian government), other than itself. I think the fact that it wants to stop murder from occurring, even if it's just when its not coming directly from that specific government, is still better for survival than having no rules and everyone just killing each other.
I do see your point though. Just one last thing about this sentence:
Notably, Mexico has laws and probably at least as many as most "cilivized" nations; the difference lies in its capacity to enforce them.
If enforcement of laws is needed, then inherently laws are needed in order to be enforced. If laws aren't enforced, then they aren't really laws. If the drug dealers are more powerful than the government, who is really making the laws? In which case, they are bad laws, by my very definition, but then that just means that Mexico needs a more powerful government.
1. Technology has increased life spans for a fuckton of time compared to what it was in cave man days.
Increased longevity is good for the individual member of the species, but has introduced an entire host of problems for the species that we otherwise would not need to worry about - financial burden, end of life care, unstable population pyramids, etc.
2. People aren't going to survive as easily, on an equal level, if someone with cancer always is left in the forest to get eaten by bugs, without medical treatment.
From an evolutionary standpoint, this is actually a good thing for the species. Medical treatment has ensured the survival of genetically weaker members. It has also led to the development of more devastating strains of diseases which have outpaced our ability to treat them, including many drug resistant strains that medicine cannot respond to at all now. And cancer is a particularly terrible example for your point: cancer exists at higher rates due to the pollution our "development" has introduced, and we still lack an actual cure for it.
3. The more primitive society is, the more war there is because the more each tribe has to compete with others to survive. Eventually, that just would turn back into pack animal war.
Tribal societies still have laws, rendering your argument an inaccurate comparison to the dispute at hand. Besides, resources remain the major source of conflict today; the difference now is that we can kill thousands of people with the push of a button.
4. We'd have more disease. If you look at tribes in Ethiopia, they have a fuckton of disease. So much, in fact, that they have some of the highest levels of infant mortality rates on earth. That's because they don't have civilization. And just look at all of the tribes in such countries that kill each other.
Again, you cannot compare tribal groups to a species without laws; they have laws. Furthermore, Ethiopia has laws. The reason disease is pervasive in that area is because of a lack of financial resources, which itself is expedited by exploitative legal-economic structures that laws create. It is further compounded by high density populations which laws enabled.
So, I think part of maximal survival is civilization, in order to organize all of that. In order to maintain that, one needs laws.
Where laws begin to actually address threats to human survival, it is largely in response to the very problems legal organization created itself.
Highly oppressive regime are civilized. Civilized is a component of my definition of good, not the whole definition. Civilized just means a higher organization of society, in order to maintain society. Can society be too civilized in the wrong way? IMO yes. But I also believe a certain amount is needed, in order to have law.
It would help if you actually used specific terminology, instead of vague concepts like "the dark ages" which typically connote something different than "civilization". Regarding "higher organization", Nazi Germany was arguably extremely well organized but that "civilization" was responsible for one of the most defective exhibitions of human behavior in the history of our species. You are arguing correlation not causation to begin with, which is its own fallacy, and even the correlation is ineffectual.
I agree with you. The government has in fact "neutralized" the population in the US, as far as I know, at least a few times in certain areas. I'm even against oppressive governments, especially doing exactly what we can probably both agree on. But I'm just saying that there are other types of crime besides what the government does. Even if the government is evil, it usually still wants to get rid of crime (other than a totalitarian government), other than itself. I think the fact that it wants to stop murder from occurring, even if it's just when its not coming directly from that specific government, is still better for survival than having no rules and everyone just killing each other.
You are not entirely grasping my point, actually. The government defines the laws which define what is crime, and also what is justified. As a consequence, the law is not just an agency for limiting violence but for legitimating and defending it. Other species manage not to kill each other off into extinction without laws, so I would challenge your assertion that everyone would just be running around killing each other (not to mention that that just seems to lack motive, and that even absent laws there would be some form of loose social organization). I suspect that governments probably kill at least as many people as people would absent the law.
If enforcement of laws is needed, then inherently laws are needed in order to be enforced. If laws aren't enforced, then they aren't really laws. If the drug dealers are more powerful than the government, who is really making the laws? In which case, they are bad laws, by my very definition, but then that just means that Mexico needs a more powerful government.
A valid point. However, drug cartels have their own laws (though the government, of course, would have us call them rules or something else... they function the same).
P.S. You dropped this point: "No idea should be impervious to interrogation, least of all the ones we take for granted. Would a return to survivalism really be the worst thing for the species at large? It does just fine for other species."
Before I counter your counters, I'm going to see what your counter is to the statement you just pointed out I missed. Going to not having technology that increases lifespans, allowing preventable diseases like polio to kill everyone again, and getting rid of the guns we use to kill animals, in an attempt at survival would be terrible for our species. Why? Even if we decided to stop killing animals, we have successfully reached the top of the food chain. Should we give that up?
Should we give up our extra long life spans? Our species can survive much more efficiently because we can communicate from miles apart. I guess it's not absolutely needed, but it would stunt the growth of the smartest species on the planet, which by the way, is the best bet at preserving the environment at large.
Not only that but in return for survival, a species should give the environment what it owes. It's possible that we evolved as an intelligent species for a reason. if you look at the possibility of intelligent aliens, nature could exist on many planets it would be common. We're nature'a way of surviving if earth ends somehow. We also take care of the planet, even though we wreck it. We take care of other species with our technology. If that isn't helping the environment, I don't know what is.
Every species gives something back, according to biologists what we give back is more than any other species. And our survival as a civilization is needed for that.
Think about it. Why are we so much smarter than everyone else? It wouldn't make any sense. No other species on Earth was given this intellectual gift by nature.
Increased lifespans, while obviously preferable for most individuals, introduce a whole new host of problems for our species. Not the least of these being population related, affecting everything from environmental impact and resources to social (dis)organization.
The notion of a preventable disease is almost entirely oxymoronic; the delusion that we can "beat" disease is a leading variable in the more deadly and virulent strains of drug resistant disease. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that without our current legal and social infrastructure we would not have organized on a level permitting the gross overpopulation that creates epidemics in the first place. With respect to all other illness, I would suggest what science has suggested: that disease and illness are a form of natural population control. Disease is not an enemy, but part of the delicate ecosystems in which it exists. Do I personally want to live in a world where I might have died very early on from a disease we could treat now? No, obviously. But that just speaks to the individual vanity and selfishness of our species, not to what is optimal for our species.
Our species can survive much more efficiently because we can communicate from miles apart. Our species can survive much more efficiently because we can communicate from miles apart. I guess it's not absolutely needed, but it would stunt the growth of the smartest species on the planet, which by the way, is the best bet at preserving the environment at large.
There is a difference between necessity and your preferential ideal, one which you apparently recognize at least in respect to communication. Regarding our being the smartest species on the planet, I would contend that that is rather self-indulgent of our species - of course we would think that. But the actual evidence speaks to us being one of the most dysfunctional species on our planet - e.g. far from being the solution, we are predominantly to blame for the very environmental crises (which are also, generally, not crises for the planet and life at large, but for us).
Not only that but in return for survival, a species should give the environment what it owes. It's possible that we evolved as an intelligent species for a reason. if you look at the possibility of intelligent aliens, nature could exist on many planets it would be common. We're nature'a way of surviving if earth ends somehow. We also take care of the planet, even though we wreck it. We take care of other species with our technology. If that isn't helping the environment, I don't know what is.
That is not how evolution works. Evolution does not select with the future in mind, but for the immediate pressures of now. Our genetics are the consequence of attributes selected for over thousands of years, and not on account of what is best but in light of what is better from among the options. This in no way secures our future with any certainty. In fact, it almost guarantees our own obsolescence if we cannot continue to evolve beyond prior genetic selections to adapt to our current environment.
The savior complex of our species is nothing short of astounding. The world would get on just fine without us and the universe would get on just fine without our planet; we and our planet are actually quite insignificant. And generally speaking, all the "good" we do for the planet and other species is largely attempting to compensate for the damage we have done and continue to do. We are one of the greatest natural disasters to happen to many ecosystems, and the "good" we have done hardly begins to repair that damage.
Every species gives something back, according to biologists what we give back is more than any other species. And our survival as a civilization is needed for that.
Please do feel free to cite me some of those biologists.
Think about it. Why are we so much smarter than everyone else? It wouldn't make any sense. No other species on Earth was given this intellectual gift by nature.
Nature does not give gifts, nor is our form of cerebral intelligence necessarily a benefit. Evolution is also not entirely infallible; we would not be the first species to go extinct on account of its inability to functionally adapt.
I think what I should have said earlier is it's our RESPONSIBILITY to give back more because we take more than we give. I say that because what negative effects we have on the environment, in turn, affect us.
Evolution may jot have made it so we'll leave Earth, but it still might happen.
This in no way refutes my arguments, which were themselves rebuttals to your original argument. If anything, it represents a concession that your argument is little more than a hypothetical conjecture without foundation.
I'm going to find the citation of the biologists though: [...] say that because what negative effects we have on the environment, in turn, affect us.
That is nice. Now find my an actual biologist who is credible, instead of a wiki page expounding the philosophy you so clearly believe in. I could care less if you and others think we owe something to our environment; the point stands that even if that were true we have fallen far short of that (which you appear to admit). The implication of this is that humans are not necessary to Earth, which means that my rebuttal stands and your argument falls.
Without the laws and regulations there will be chaos, bedlam, discord and disorder. The fundamental reason for having laws is that it controls and restricts the behavior of the people, their actions that can hurt others. If there will be no rules and regulations and all will be given the freedom to act as they like then no one will have safety, no one will have freedom in the literal sense because there will be an 'all time' fear of getting harmed by others. There will be no peace, no order, no safety and therefore no life worth living.
I believe that laws are needed. They are there with the intention of keeping peace and order. Without laws, there would be people killing, stealing and doing all sorts of shocking things. The law acts as a deterrent to crime by punishing those who commit offences.
I don' think we'd go extinct without them. And I don't think (from a non religious perspective) there's some binding force that makes laws obligatory. So even if getting rid of laws means everyone would die, they still wouldn't be "needed" in the grand scheme of things.
I disagree, as a species it would seem that laws of simple evolutionary constructs that help our species survive in an efficient manner. Since we can perform what many may call "higher order thoughts" we can postulate and create laws that we deem as beneficial to the species and not just ourselves.
I feel your points are valid but what you're claiming is another type of law.
Animals and humans have rules of conduct and these can be perceived as laws. If you look at the higher order of thoughts was founded and then evolved into what you describe today.
I just want to want to add that the quality and level of evolved law differs between countries and this judgement like many others is subjective to both the inhabitant and observer.
Whether a current political party is better than another is not something I'm specifically discussing.
He was saying that he felt you wrote the same thing as he did. He needs an explanation of how your viewpoint is actually different. I think he meant that anyway.
Moral obligations to others make laws obligatory. Just because you think you don't have obligations to others doesn't mean laws aren't necessary. Law and enforcement are there precisely for people who are lacking in either knowledge or discipline to act properly towards others.
First, prove that laws necessarily reflect and support morality.
It is a fact that the idea of a law is an attempt to support and reflect morality. And it's an attempt at a logical enforcement of that, which I think is a good idea.
Second, prove that morality is both good and necessary itself. I bet you cannot.
That's only because you can't define "good", or even what it would be "necessary" for
But the way I look at it, it all comes from the evolutionary need of a species to survive. it's a basic need we all have. And we all have the desire to survive on a fair level, and I think that's where morality comes from. I think it comes from the desire of everyone to survive in a healthy and happy manner for the longest possible period of time. And if that's how you define the word good, as well as what it's necessary to achieve, then laws are necessary. Why?
To survive in the maximally healthy and long-lasting way, we need civilization. To maintain civilization, we need laws.
It is a fact that the idea of a law is an attempt to support and reflect morality. And it's an attempt at a logical enforcement of that, which I think is a good idea.
You misunderstand my challenge, and in part that is owing to my phraseology. I was asking for proof that laws must necessarily reflect and support morality. In other words, must laws intrinsically be connected to morality and why?
That's only because [...] To survive in the maximally healthy and long-lasting way, we need civilization. To maintain civilization, we need laws.
I recognize that morality is a (by)product of evolution. There is no actual evidence, however, that morality is a primary consequence of evolution, rather than an incidental consequence of other attributes evolution selected for (e.g. self-awareness, imagination, etc.). Even if morality were at one point necessary for the species, the very premise of evolution is change and there is nothing to say that morality need maintain itself in perpetuity; it is entirely possible that it could be evolved beyond.
More importantly, consider that virtually every other species that has ever existed has lived without morality and without laws. There is nothing innately necessary about morality and laws to evolutionary success. For all that people claim morality and laws have "civilized" us above other species, we are one of the most dysfunctional species in existence - we are the only species that kills its own kind for pleasure, we are the only species that has large-scale wars, we are the only species thoroughly destroying our own environment and literally poisoning ourselves.
I understand you might have a problem with modern laws, but they are there for the purpose of people not being able to commit immoral actions. While not perfect, they have been made and are changed for morality. And the definition of morality as I know it IS good. And that's necessary.
I do not personally have a problem with modern laws; I simply do not see them as necessary. The same goes for morality. You have utterly failed to demonstrate any actual reason as to why either morality or laws are needed - you just keep asserting your feelings, and I really could care less about that in the context of a debate.
It was dispute. I remember saying laws are for morality and morality is for good and good is necessary. I don't know how you interpretted my dispute but it wasn't just asserting my opinion - I was disputing yours! And you have stated I cannot prove modern laws support morality. That's why I said "you might have a problem with modern laws", but as I have said, they are MEANT to support morality and it's being perfected to be that way. This was a CLARIFICATION of my previous DISPUTE.
No need to YELL. Allow me to clarify my initial rebuttal, since it has clearly been misunderstood.
When I asked that you prove that laws necessarily reflect and support morality, I was not asking you to prove that modern laws do so. I was asking you to prove that this association is inherently the case. If laws do not need to be based upon a moral sense of right and wrong, then a general statement about all laws being necessary cannot be made upon the moral premise alone.
Defining morality as good commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. You are merely asserting your subjective feelings on the matter; this has limited bearing upon what actually is, objectively. Further, even if your claim were self-legitimating it would still be presuming the necessity of "good" itself.
Laws and morality are both necessary for a social environment that is more conducive to life and living (both longer and better) which is a human value. Morals provide a standard of conduct imprinted on a person by society and developed individually and act as an internal incentive for conduct. Laws represent an external incentive for social conduct. This accounts for the variation in internal incentives. Laws are not only necessary to help protect people from aggressors, but also to provide mediation for honest disputes. Any group of people, no matter how nice they are, will have honest disputes. For this reason, standards of conduct (with both internal and external incentives) are necessary regardless of the type of people involved.
(If you intend to say people aren't necessary, there's that whole other debate)
Laws and morality are both necessary for a social environment that is more conducive to life and living (both longer and better) which is a human value.
Not inherently; other species do just fine without them. With respect to our longevity, longer lifespans are apparently preferable for the individual (in most cases) but not necessarily for our species. Our longer lifespans have led to an entire host of problems that we otherwise would not encounter, not the least of which are new medical issues and population based social and environmental problems.
cessary for a social environment that is more conducive to life and living (both longer and better) which is a human value. Morals provide a standard of conduct imprinted on a person by society and developed individually and act as an internal incentive for conduct. Laws represent an external incentive for social conduct. This accounts for the variation in internal incentives. Laws are not only necessary to help protect people from aggressors, but also to provide mediation for honest disputes. Any group of people, no matter how nice they are, will have honest disputes. For this reason, standards of conduct (with both internal and external incentives) are necessary regardless of the type of people involved.
Morals are not an internal behavioral regulator; they are an external form of social control to which our genetics (generally) predispose us. The function of law, ostensibly, is to supplement that external regulation (sometimes in the interest of the collective, but not inherently). The problem with both morality and law is that both are quite evidently susceptible to causing individual and collective harm, as much as they create any semblance of order. The thing with morality and law is that they do not just create order - they create an order, and it is on account of our familiarity with that form of order that we tend to consider it true simply by virtue of its existing. If unmediated dispute resolution were the norm, however, law would be the objectionable notion. The only way in which morality and law are "necessary" is in sustaining the status quo, a conclusion which requires a bit of circular reasoning.
There is nothing inherently necessary to having laws. They are required to maintain certain infrastructure that we are accustomed to under the present status quo, but to assert the necessity of laws on that basis alone relies upon the unfounded assumption that such infrastructure itself is necessary.
Strictly speaking, according to your view, is anything inherently necessary? I mean, not to say you're wrong or anything, but if your basis for law being unneeded is that nothing is inherently necessary, I think it important to clarify that for the sake of others who might be following this exchange; while still an interesting perspective, it's not a particularly useful one for someone operating under the premises that some things are necessary.
A useful clarification, and not entirely inaccurate. I consider no human byproduct inherently necessary, because I do not consider our species necessary itself. That being said, I recognize the need that certain concessions to my ideology be made for the sake of my participation in this particular debate; I am in this specific context adopting the temporary perspective of evolutionary necessity since that seems not entirely objectionable or indefensible to myself.
Although, to be fair, I am hardly under any obligation to accommodate the assumptive premises of other debaters. I happen to be in the frequent minority, however, so people to tend to expect that sort of capitulation to their "common sense".
