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.
There a clear patterns that apply to every society as to what is moral and what is immoral. I fail to see how saying something is subjective is enough to prove it doesn't exist outside subjective experience - there are clearly objective elements.
All this "there is no spoon" stuff about morality is really dull.
Is it possible that societies that don't follow those patterns aren't as cohesive/successful, and less likely to exist over time - therefore they are likely to be found in societies that do exist (especially when the same patterns are found in evolutionarily close relatives to humans)?
It says nothing of their objectiveness or morality, only that such patterns have heretofore been conducive to the fitness of a group.
objective elements
objective elements but not an objective foundation. Whether a given action is likely to produce a certain outcome may be (to an extent) objectively ascertained - whether it is objectively good or bad cannot.
All this "there is no spoon" stuff about morality is really dull.
(So is the equivocation.) There is reasonable/rational morality for achieving different goals - there is not a given universal morality outside of human opinion.
It says nothing of their objectiveness or morality, only that such patterns have heretofore been conducive to the fitness of a group.
That is very speculative. I would think morality is less conducive to the success of a group.
objective elements but not an objective foundation. Whether a given action is likely to produce a certain outcome may be (to an extent) objectively ascertained - whether it is objectively good or bad cannot.
You seem to have accepted that human beings find suffering without justification moral. You say this is because it happens to be that every single human being on the planet labels the act as immoral. I don't understand the rationale behind saying that there is nothing objectively immoral in an act that every single human being perceives to be immoral. There must be something inherent in the act (and also something inherent in the human) that makes the act immoral.
Immoral is a label we place on something. If we ceased to place that label on it, it doesn't cease to have the qualities that made it immoral. These qualities, even if we leave them undefined, are objective.
I would think morality is less conducive to the success of a group.
It isn't.
You seem to have accepted that human beings find suffering without justification moral.
suffering and justification are both subjective.
every single human being on the planet labels the act as immoral
there is no, or very nearly no, actual act where this is the case.
I don't understand the rationale behind saying that there is nothing objectively immoral in an act that every single human being perceives to be immoral.
Thus our debate. Objective morality does not depend on whether everyone agrees or disagrees.
Immoral is a label we place on something.
Yes - we subjectively define things as immoral.
These qualities, even if we leave them undefined, are objective.
Again, an objective attribute is different from an objective foundation or goal. The question to ask yourself is - Does this moral exist outside of human opinion? - might be useful to try and make your claims against animals to see how they hold up.
Show me to research. I think evolution psychology is against you on this but I'm willing to be proved wrong.
suffering and justification are both subjective.
Physical suffering, as in pain, subjective in regard to its degree but it is clear it exists. We can observe it clearly with medical imaging.
Yes - we subjectively define things as immoral.
We label observable qualities as immoral. There is a difference. Its are not randomly throwing labels about to come to the conclusion that they are immoral. The decision that something is immoral originates from the qualities of the act. I'm not saying that there isn't a highly subjective element but to suggest that there is no objective element to identifying moral and immoral acts seems absurd.
Again, an objective attribute is different from an objective foundation or goal. The question to ask yourself is - Does this moral exist outside of human opinion? - might be useful to try and make your claims against animals to see how they hold up.
Humans appreciate moral and immoral acts. Animals don't always. Some of them do however.
Not quite sure what research you need to prove that cooperation has been favored under certain conditions - evidence for natural selection, a list of cooperative animals, or... ?
Here is a paper on cooperative behavior in extant isolated human hunter gatherers, but not really sure if it is in line with what you are looking for.
pain
Not only is pain subjective as you describe, but the formula you gave pits suffering (including physical and mental) against justification which is always subjective.
Its are not randomly throwing labels about
Subjective doesn't mean random
The decision that something is immoral originates from the qualities of the act.
And our subjective perspective of those qualities.
seems absurd
making it an effective appeal to emotion which is why people still like to use it as an argument even if it is fallacious.
to suggest that there is no objective element
I'll repeat, an objective characteristic is different from an objective foundation.
The publications on the subject are numerous but of course some aspects are still difficult to figure out. For instance online gaming having high levels of cooperation between individuals in environments where reciprocation seems unlikely is puzzling.
I don't believe that asking a question regarding the existence of something CAN be an opinion question. The item in question either does or does not exist.
Whose observation or knowledge? A person - who came into it with a certain viewpoint and can get out of it something different than another person who makes the same observation.
Speculation additionally requires the (subjective) weighing of all that observation and knowledge.
Your prior post stated: "I don't believe that asking a question regarding the existence of something CAN be an opinion question."
When in fact, any question without an empirical answer MUST be an opinion question.
Evil is just a term used to refer to "the harmful" If we had never invented that term, we would have invented a different one to refer to "the harmful"
Can some things be objectively demonstrated to be harmful? Yes.
Evil has both objective and subjective elements. For example... causing someone to suffer without justification is objectively wrong/evil. What is the justification is the subjective component: it is subject to the society and the individual.
That is false. Suffering (fundamentally) is an uncontrollable natural occurrence. You cannot say things that naturally occurring rights are 'factually' wrong.
I believe our laws reflect what society defines as evil. if evil were subjective, how is it that there are things in this world that nearly everyone considers evil. as far as I know, every country in the world considers murder evil and punishable by law. illegally invading a country is considered 'evil' and part of international law. most governments of the world have unified to define what is acceptable in the world, and what is not. stealing to feed yourself may be subjective, but according to the law it is not.
If even one person disagrees with the conception of a thing as evil, then it cannot be said that that thing is universally conceived of as evil. I do not believe that murder, invasion, stealing, etc. are evil; in fact, I do not believe anything is evil because I do not believe in evil.
Even if human beings did hold a universal conception of evil, that does not prove that evil exists objectively (i.e. outside of and independent from that conception).
I have never heard of evil existing as a thing unto itself. No, I do not believe it can exist as such.
My thinking is that “evil” is simply a descriptive word used to illustrate the vast amounts of human caused destruction. It could only exist in someone who knowingly and willingly destroys other people, in a variety of ways. I do not believe it exists as a thing unto or by itself. Those who act in such ways have chosen to do so, and therefore, are creators of their own demise.
I believe we are all capable of doing wicked things, causing sorrow and/or distress, and destruction to each other. We make choices to do those acts or not, when living and conducting ourselves on a daily basis, individually.
"Evil" references an extreme form of moral "wrong"; it is a stronger form of interpersonal, social, and legal behavioral regulation. The term "evil" really has little to do with what is actually harmful; it can refer both to something that is objectively harmful to an individual or group of persons (e.g. genocide), and to something that is objectively non-harmful (e.g. homosexuality).
Regarding our choice and culpability for the consequences, I would challenge you to substantiate that assertion. What evidence do you actually have that we actually exercise any free will at all?
"Evil" references an extreme form of moral "wrong";
True, but that is really not any different than what I said.
it is a stronger form of interpersonal, social, and legal behavioral regulation.
Meaning what exactly? Those things you mentioned are there to minimize the damage done by acts that are considered "evil" in themselves.
The term "evil" really has little to do with what is actually harmful; it can refer both to something that is objectively harmful to an individual or group of persons (e.g. genocide), and to something that is objectively non-harmful (e.g. homosexuality).
It is a form of expression to identify an action that cannot be reasonably justified, such as, murder. It has very much to do with what is actually harmful. Just because someone has an opinion about some activity that they find detestable and they claim it's “evil” does not make it so, but they might see that activity as being harmful for a valid reason; such as genocide, murder on a massive scale.
Homosexuality is a lifestyle that cannot be said to be necessarily evil because it has to do with consensual activity. Others might not like it but, it is not up to them to decide for someone else how to live their life; and that applies to anything that is voluntary, however, in order for it to be such, it has to include the giving of consent in a knowing and willing manner.
Young Children, for example, cannot be expected to understand fully what that is, so, a boundary line has to be considered there.
Regarding our choice and culpability for the consequences, I would challenge you to substantiate that assertion. What evidence do you actually have that we actually exercise any free will at all?
Are we going to debate free-will now? Yes? No?
Free-will is self-evident. The very fact that you posed the question shows you exercised free-will. It cannot be proven nor dis-proven.
True, but that is really not any different than what I said.
That oddly truncated portion of my full statement was not a rebuttal to your argument; it was an explanatory preface to my rebuttal.
Meaning what exactly? Those things you mentioned are there to minimize the damage done by acts that are considered "evil" in themselves.
Behavioral regulation does not exist to minimize evil; evil is a conceptual tool of behavioral regulation. Behavioral regulation itself is not beholden to the pro-social goal of harm reduction, but is instead a mechanism for affecting power distribution. Moral behavioral control specifically has facilitated numerous objective harms - war, genocide, witch hunts, hate crimes, lynchings, etc.
It is a form of expression to identify an action that cannot be reasonably justified, such as, murder. [...] Young Children, for example, cannot be expected to understand fully what that is, so, a boundary line has to be considered there.
You are reasserting a bright-line instance to dismiss the ambiguity inherent to the concept of evil. The term "evil" is not defined in objective terms of empirical harms, but in reference to subjective moral assertions. It is a social-cognitive construct that does not exist independent of our conception of it, and consequentially it does not exist in a universal, objective state. If we did not perceive murder as evil it would not be evil, because the perception is everything... "evil" is a projection of our feelings onto what actually exists and is not inherent to that upon which we project it.
P.S. Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" anymore than heterosexuality is.
Are we going to debate free-will now? Yes? No? Free-will is self-evident. The very fact that you posed the question shows you exercised free-will. It cannot be proven nor dis-proven.
Free will is not self-evident. Me asking a question does not prove that I asked the question by my own free will; it only proves that I asked a question. Your argument is that since we perceive it to exist it does exist, which is not actually proof that it exists at all (much as perceiving God to exist is not proof of the existence of God). Just because you can conceive of a thing does not mean it is real.
Additionally, science has actually already discounted the validity of our perception of free will and increasingly indicates that free will is only a neurological delusion. Studies have demonstrated that the processes responsible for our actions are already in motion before we become consciously aware of having "decided" to take that action.
Well it all depends if you beleive that satan exists or not. And no not what we imagine in our minds to be what satan is. Its actually believing that he is the primary source of evil, just as I beleive Jesus/God is the primary source of good.
In my mind I think evil diesnt exist. Bad does. But bad lives in us as does good. Mandela once said "We are not people born to hate, nor to love. we are taught both. But love comes more naturally than hate." Who says we aren't taught bad and good. A bad and good created by man. I think it's all an illusion created by man to explain think the eye can't.
