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.
In order to properly debate, I must have my opponents means of judging need and his representation of morality. I do not wish to provide a counter-plan or counter-affirmative so my sole goal shall be the negation of my opponent if he accepts these terms.
I'll have a go anyway. By a moral obligation, I mean that which is required to have a sense of morality. And by "need", I mean that which is essential, not just desirable. This is an important distinction.
Another important point is the origin of our morality. I believe that there does exist objective morality, which we have acquired through evolution.
This then brings us to understand the essence of evolution. It's survival of the fittest. This is commonly misunderstood to mean individualism, when the opposite is in fact true. Humans are group animals, and we have a higher chance of surviving if we work together in groups, or societies.
So what keeps these societies stable? Basic moral obligations, drummed into us through evolution. It is a moral obligation to not rape, to not murder, etc. And I believe it is also a moral obligation to help those in need.
Remember that a "need" is that which is essential. If we deprive societies of essentials, then the societies will collapse. From evolution, we can then say it would be much harder for the human race to survive in this anarchistic state.
My point is that humanity has evolved a moral obligation to help those in need, so that we don't jeopardize our survival.
I accept your definition of need and do not disagree that morality is objective.
You say we have a higher chance to survive when in groups. I agree, but the nature of those groups are almost never moral. Dictatorships, slavery, other forms of coercion have been the majority throughout history. Companionship itself does not equal a moral arrangement.
I also disagree with your claim that the root of morality is evolution. Morality is the product of philosophy, and all evolution has given us is the capability to develop philosophy. And you do not credit the type-writer with the content of publications.(Hope the wording of that analogy works, something feels off about it).
Remember that a "need" is that which is essential. If we deprive societies of essentials, then the societies will collapse
But we are not discussing the essentials of society, a homeless individual who is lacking basic necessities is more within the description "those in need".
I would argue that no actual obligation exists. We respect societal law as a means of protecting ourselves(social contract according to Locke) and any and all duties are existent due to consent and thus are not binding moral obligations.
You say we have a higher chance to survive when in groups. I agree, but the nature of those groups are almost never moral. Dictatorships, slavery, other forms of coercion have been the majority throughout history. Companionship itself does not equal a moral arrangement.
I agree with your point on dictatorships and slavery, but how many dictatorships are sustainable today? And how many booming societies employ slavery as a moral value? Unless I am mistaken, very few indeed, which supports the idea that a society with basic moral obligations will be more successful than one without, which in turn suggests that we have a moral obligation to help those in need.
I also disagree with your claim that the root of morality is evolution. Morality is the product of philosophy, and all evolution has given us is the capability to develop philosophy. And you do not credit the type-writer with the content of publications.(Hope the wording of that analogy works, something feels off about it).
This is somewhat true, but not entirely, I believe. Evolution has given us moral intuition, which is instinctive, and not dependent on rational thought. From this, we evolved moral judgement, which comes about through philosophy, and is dependent on rational thought. So whilst we can't overlook the role philosophy plays, it would seem that evolution is the root of our morality, with philosophy coming later. It's only a hypothesis, but it makes a lot of sense. Here's my source, only the first page is important, the second is about politics and whatnot.
But we are not discussing the essentials of society, a homeless individual who is lacking basic necessities is more within the description "those in need".
Then you should have specified. An entire society in need also fits under the definition "those in need".
I would argue that no actual obligation exists. We respect societal law as a means of protecting ourselves(social contract according to Locke) and any and all duties are existent due to consent and thus are not binding moral obligations.
I believe that my source on morality being genetic rebuts that. If you dismantle all society, we still have moral intuition, and thus we have moral obligations.
Unless I am mistaken, very few indeed, which supports the idea that a society with basic moral obligations will be more successful than one without
The definition of success might be a little subjective, but the empires of history have been the greatest and most influential nations mankind has ever seen. The impacts they created far outweigh anything the modern states have accomplished. The Industrial Revolution, the greatest influx of technology and success in modern history, was made possible due to slavery and other forms of exploitation. That is not to say coercion is moral, but if success is any indicator, moral obligations do little in affecting the greatness of a society.
Evolution has given us moral intuition, which is instinctive, and not dependent on rational thought.
Evolution has provided rational intuition itself, but that adaptation is a mere prerequisite to morality or moral thought. I'm trying to decide whether or not you are using the work of Sam Harris as your foundation.
Then you should have specified. An entire society in need also fits under the definition "those in need".
Apologies.
I believe that my source on morality being genetic rebuts that. If you dismantle all society, we still have moral intuition, and thus we have moral obligations
The purpose behind all accepted social contract theories is that in a state of nature, no binding moral code is followed or upheld. Morality itself would exists regardless of society, but moral "obligations" are only from social consent and as such are not binding and therefor, are not actual obligations.
"Many people will say it is morally acceptable to pull a switch that diverts a train, killing just one person instead of the five on the other track. But if asked to save the same five lives by throwing a person in the train’s path, people will say the action is wrong"
Where is the distinction? Both are deontological positions and both represent the act of defying ones right to life for the sake of others.
"This may be evidence for an ancient subconscious morality that deters causing direct physical harm to someone else. An equally strong moral sanction has not yet evolved for harming someone indirectly"
May be? It seems the writer is trying to place his own sense of morality into this theory. Not yet evolved? Why assume one will?
"But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. "
This is by far the statement I disagree with the most. Selfish tendencies such as love are what make humanity efficient and progressive.
The definition of success might be a little subjective, but the empires of history have been the greatest and most influential nations mankind has ever seen. The impacts they created far outweigh anything the modern states have accomplished. The Industrial Revolution, the greatest influx of technology and success in modern history, was made possible due to slavery and other forms of exploitation. That is not to say coercion is moral, but if success is any indicator, moral obligations do little in affecting the greatness of a society.
I meant in the present day. Today we have a system of human rights that didn't exist in the Roman or British or Mongolian empire. These are founded upon the moral obligations that exist in us, I believe.
Evolution has provided rational intuition itself, but that adaptation is a mere prerequisite to morality or moral thought.
It certainly makes evolution key to the process. For want of a better analogy, you can't make a sandwich (moral reasoning through philosophy) without bread (intuition through evolution). I accept then that our entire morality is not founded solely in evolution, but I do maintain that it is not solely founded in philosophy.
I'm trying to decide whether or not you are using the work of Sam Harris as your foundation.
My entire Sam Harris knowledge stretches to one debate he had with William Lane Craig. I do not know enough about his work to actively claim it as the foundation for my arguments. I could be coincidentally using it, I'll let you be the judge of that.
The purpose behind all accepted social contract theories is that in a state of nature, no binding moral code is followed or upheld. Morality itself would exists regardless of society, but moral "obligations" are only from social consent and as such are not binding and therefor, are not actual obligations.
I needed that clarification, I'd not really known too much about social contract theories, beyond a few Wikipedia pages, until then.
Where is the distinction? Both are deontological positions and both represent the act of defying ones right to life for the sake of others.
The distinction being that whilst the former involves a non-personal interaction, if you like, the latter involves a personal action. I guess it could be compared to, say, eating KFC and having to kill the chicken. (I'm running low on analogies).
May be? It seems the writer is trying to place his own sense of morality into this theory. Not yet evolved? Why assume one will?
True. I think it would be fair to say that it is unknown whether or not one will evolve. Perhaps the scenario isn't common enough for it to have a real effect on us, making evolution arbitrary?
This is by far the statement I disagree with the most. Selfish tendencies such as love are what make humanity efficient and progressive.
I assume that you're familiar with Ayn Rand's works on love. I could not argue that love is not selfish.
Do you prefer a limit on the number of responses? I do not mind either way, this one on one thing is forcing me to bring out my high school debator self.
I meant in the present day. Today we have a system of human rights that didn't exist in the Roman or British or Mongolian empire. These are founded upon the moral obligations that exist in us, I believe.
But no major evolutionary changes have occurred in humans as of late(unless your expanding evolution to include both genetics and social evolution, up until now I've assumed genetic) if no changes in human make-up have occurred since near Biblical(if that) times, where does your model of morality enter?
I accept then that our entire morality is not founded solely in evolution, but I do maintain that it is not solely founded in philosophy.
I would say it depends entirely on philosophy, as morality is a form of knowledge and philosophy is man's means of gaining and interpreting knowledge.
I do not know enough about his work to actively claim it as the foundation for my arguments. I could be coincidentally using it, I'll let you be the judge of that.
If morality from evolution is something you wish to progress, his book The Moral Landscape is definetly for you.
I'd not really known too much about social contract theories, beyond a few Wikipedia pages, until then.
Then you already knew more than most people :). Social contract theory can be quite interesting, especially some of the more bizarre concepts.
The distinction being that whilst the former involves a non-personal interaction, if you like, the latter involves a personal action. I guess it could be compared to, say, eating KFC and having to kill the chicken. (I'm running low on analogies).
But from a moral viewpoint, they are identical. Drawing a distinction is an indicator of either an inconsistant philosophy or a moral error. And what of the individual who was sacrificed? Could he not have believed himself protected by a moral obligation of society to respect his right to life?
I think it would be fair to say that it is unknown whether or not one will evolve. Perhaps the scenario isn't common enough for it to have a real effect on us, making evolution arbitrary?
I think that your argument has great merit to it, just not from the source you presented to me. I greatly recommend Harris's book.
I assume that you're familiar with Ayn Rand's works on love. I could not argue that love is not selfish.
I am familiar with her works indeed. I was ready to quote the shit out of collections of her essays. The significance is not just love but every social interaction.
(I do not expect you to read the evidence below by any means, I am just posting it to add credibility and to make myself look good)
Do you prefer a limit on the number of responses? I do not mind either way, this one on one thing is forcing me to bring out my high school debator self.
Shall we make it 5 responses? This would be my 4th, and then the next would be your 4th. Then we could summarize our arguments in the 5th. As for the high school comment, I don't know whether to be offended or not. ;)
But no major evolutionary changes have occurred in humans as of late(unless your expanding evolution to include both genetics and social evolution, up until now I've assumed genetic)
Well, sociocultural evolution is a part of evolution, but it doesn't affect my argument, no.
if no changes in human make-up have occurred since near Biblical(if that) times, where does your model of morality enter?
The time that you are proposing is far too short for mammalian creatures. 2000 would probably have to turn in to two million for a major change, or at least 200,000. Even so, perhaps there is evidence to suggest that humans are changing, or evolving, quite rapidly at the moment. A study was carried out that showed that humans seemed to be evolving faster.
I would say it depends entirely on philosophy, as morality is a form of knowledge and philosophy is man's means of gaining and interpreting knowledge.
This then leads us back to the whole "evolution is the root, philosophy follows" thing, which I think we've covered sufficiently.
But from a moral viewpoint, they are identical. Drawing a distinction is an indicator of either an inconsistant philosophy or a moral error. And what of the individual who was sacrificed? Could he not have believed himself protected by a moral obligation of society to respect his right to life?
And that can be flipped to the 5 who are killed because of apathy to the situation. As for the man who is sacrificed, does he know that there are 5 other lives at stake? Maybe he then feels a moral obligation to be sacrificed, in order to preserve a net gain?
I think that your argument has great merit to it, just not from the source you presented to me. I greatly recommend Harris's book.
I apologize, I haven't done any serious debating for a while now. The only source I've posted recently is the trololol video.
I will check out that Sam Harris book, and perhaps I will brush up on some Ayn Rand.
As for the high school comment, I don't know whether to be offended or not. ;)
It was not meant to offend, my high school debates were the most intense debates I've ever had and I resent myself for allowing that ability to slowly die.
2000 would probably have to turn in to two million for a major change, or at least 200,000. Even so, perhaps there is evidence to suggest that humans are changing, or evolving, quite rapidly at the moment.
In studying psychology one can see small changes in the brain over the course of mankind's history. Not to any extreme or perhaps even minor degree, but there is undoubtably some type of change that has occurred in the brain of humans that has changed the way he interacts with fellow human beings and how he developed new social relations. I'd be lying if I said I had any reasonable degree of knowledge on the subjec to use this as a true contention, just another one of the few worthwhile benefits of high school that has been allowed to escape me. And I would disagree that the timeline is unreasonable for evolutionary change. If we can witness the forming of entirely new species in this generation, who can put a limitation on the abilities of evolution?
And that can be flipped to the 5 who are killed because of apathy to the situation.
Then it falls to the model of morality you hold. I hold that proposed by Ayn Rand, who in this instants would argue that we cannot expect any man to compromise his existence for the sake of others nor use coercion to force it.
As for the man who is sacrificed, does he know that there are 5 other lives at stake
Does his knowledge of the event change the fact that he is entitled to his own existence?
Maybe he then feels a moral obligation to be sacrificed, in order to preserve a net gain?
This is the only point I will concede to. If he consents and values the continuing existence of the 5, the action would be moral. But that consent wouldn't be based on an obligation, it would be based on value.
I will check out that Sam Harris book, and perhaps I will brush up on some Ayn Rand
And I'll get over my lazy tendancies and expand my knowledge of evolution. Time to watch some AronRa.
In studying psychology one can see small changes in the brain over the course of mankind's history. Not to any extreme or perhaps even minor degree, but there is undoubtably some type of change that has occurred in the brain of humans that has changed the way he interacts with fellow human beings and how he developed new social relations
That is true, but I believe that is more sociocultural evolution, as opposed to genetic evolution.
And I would disagree that the timeline is unreasonable for evolutionary change.
I don't mean that we cannot change at all in 2000 years, but the actual scale that can occur appears to be limited by our reproductive rate. Evolution occurs over generations, and humans reproduce relatively slowly, compared to mice or other such creatures. It should also be noted that this subset of morality would be acquired through weak selection (a trait that is relatively unimportant), as opposed to strong selection ( a trait that is significantly important to survival). This would severely increase the amount of time needed for it to occur.
If we can witness the forming of entirely new species in this generation, who can put a limitation on the abilities of evolution?
Again, it's not about limiting the abilities of evolution, it's the limits of humanity. To put it bluntly, we don't shag quickly enough.
Does his knowledge of the event change the fact that he is entitled to his own existence?
Does it change that the other 5 are entitled to their own existence? This also raises up a point of my own, which is far too lengthy and irrelevant to go into here (perhaps I'll create a debate on it), but is anyone entitled to their own existence? Who entitles them (ignoring the supernatural here), and what gives them the right to proclaim that they are entitled to it? It's connected to my belief that the right to life is not a genuine right, but like I said, another time perhaps.
To summarize my points then. I contend that a moral obligation to help those in need exists due to evolution threatening our survival as a species if we do not help those in need. While I accept that morality is not solely founded in evolution, I maintain that our basic intuition that we could not have morality without comes from evolution, making it relevant to this discussion.
However, it has to be said that I have learned a lot too. I thank you for creating and participating in this debate, and for providing strong counter arguments.
PS: I went to the library with my friend earlier today, and I took out The Moral Landscape.
That is true, but I believe that is more sociocultural evolution, as opposed to genetic evolution.
It was my understanding that such a radical change in group social behavior neccesitated a genetic evolutionary change,but hey, I'm behind on my evolution know-how. Time to start watching AronRa perhaps.
Does it change that the other 5 are entitled to their own existence?
One cannot be entitled to the life of another. Same reasons dictatorships and slavery are wrong and immoral.
but is anyone entitled to their own existence? Who entitles them (ignoring the supernatural here), and what gives them the right to proclaim that they are entitled to it?
People are entitled to their lives by virtue of natural possession first and social contract second.
In conclusion, moral obligations are not inherent hence the requirent for a social contract. Evolution has provided the means for evolution, but just as we do not credit evolution as the source mathematics, we cannot credit evolution with the source of morality. Both are concepts born from rational thought.
I thank you for a great debate and a great argument to ponder.