CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
20
This Nothing
Debate Score:42
Arguments:59
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 This (20)
 
 Nothing (19)

Debate Creator

StickinStone(649) pic



What, if anything, is necessary ?

Another debate sparked by Jace when he stated "I consider no human byproduct inherently necessary, because I do not consider our species necessary itself".

If our species is not necessary, what, if anyting, is?

This

Side Score: 22
VS.

Nothing

Side Score: 20

The idea of necessity can’t be taken out of context. If a thing is necessary, it is required by someone or something and for a purpose.

Living things are the only entities that can hold anything as necessary. Are human beings necessary? Well, depends on the root value. We are not necessary for photosynthesis. We are necessary for the domestic chickens. I think the most important reason we are necessary is for our own sake. We are capable of having necessities like any other living thing. It’s a bit of a tautology but we are necessary because we are required in order for us to be. And being is the number one value and necessity for all living things, followed closely by replication…which is necessary.

Side: This
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

Effectively, your argument is that we are necessary because we are necessary to ourselves. This is not only a circular form of reasoning, but it presumes our own value as its premise. This is unsurprising, since necessity is a projection inherently founded upon such assumptive values. When pressed though, I doubt that you can find any objective reason as to why we are necessary outside of our own perceived self-worth (which is, as mentioned, a subjective belief).

Side: Nothing
Amarel(5565) Disputed
1 point

It seems circular, because this is the nature of inherence. If I were the only living thing, I would be the only thing capable of valuing. Since I value myself I am the only thing that is valuable in, of, and by myself (inherent). The ability and requirement to value is a property of humanity, which objectively exists. Taking people out of the picture doesn't make reality any more objective than taking physics out of the picture. We are a thing that exists and we have certain properties. Among those properties is valuation. Our own perceived self-worth is inherent in humanity (people who have zero self worth stop existing). It's not subjective because it is a given property.

Side: This

Air. Air is necessary. Try going without air for a few minutes. ;)

Side: This
Nebeling(1118) Clarified
4 points

Assuming you are one of those persons that think it's necessary to stay alive.

Side: This
1 point

Necessary is relative, so my question before I can even make an argument is:

Necessary to what?

Side: This
StickinStone(649) Clarified
1 point

Can a thing be necessary to itself?

By this question I mean that living things try to keep living. I living things life is necessary to it. Life is an inherent value to the living. Does this make a living thing necessary to itself?

Side: This
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

Name something that wouldn't be necessary to itself.

Is a screw needed to have a screw?

Side: This
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

This is getting too Matrixy for me. I'm sure that the spoon exists, even if you say their is none.

What I'm getting at is this: I see no point in going deeper into the layers of asking if something is necessary to itself, and anything relating to that, since technically in this spectrum of reality, it is inherently. Their is no life without life being necessary to being life, if that makes sense, but sense (in this reality) there is life, life is necessary to itself.

To answer your initial question, if an answer is what you wanted, I'd say it goes without question.

Side: This
King0Mir(67) Disputed
1 point

Life is not of any value to primitive lifeforms because primitive life forms have no concept of value. Living things don't "try" to keep living. Things that perpetuate their own kind dominate by virtue of that mechanism, but this is the product of mindless chemistry.

To truly value life you at least need self awareness.

Side: Nothing
2 points

All necessity is conditional. When we say something is necessary another thing we are projecting a presumption of secondary necessity to whatever the primary necessity is required for (A is necessary for B to exist, which ultimately presumes that B is necessary itself... and so on). To ascribe necessity is to construct a notion of value around the secondary object for which the primary is necessary. Ultimately, however, there is no legitimate basis from which to claim that value exists objectively.

That we view things as necessary to our survival is a consequence of our presumed sense of personal and collective worth. The problem with this belief is that it has no objective foundation, but is instead premised upon a subjective value claim.

Side: Nothing
Amarel(5565) Disputed
1 point

You can say that death is necessary for murder without claiming that murder is necessary. Beyond that, living things are the only things that can value of hold something to have worth. Holding values is a property of the living. Living things exist objectively. Therefore, so do values, though only to the living.

Side: This
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

You can say that death is necessary for murder without claiming that murder is necessary.

You can say that death is necessary to meet the definition of murder but you cannot do so without claiming that the term murder must have an absolute, singular, and codified meaning. The secondary claim implied by the initial one is that language needs to be codified. Etc.

Beyond that, living things are the only things that can value of hold something to have worth. Holding values is a property of the living. Living things exist objectively. Therefore, so do values, though only to the living.

I addressed your nearly identical rebuttal to myself to this effect elsewhere already; I refer you there since I am disinterested in unnecessarily redundant discussions.

Side: Nothing
1 point

To say something is necessary requires a value system to assert what that thing is necessary for. The only value anything has is the value given by people. Another way to say this is nothing is inherently valuable. Therefore nothing is inherently necessary.

However, this is not the most clear turn of phrase.

Side: Nothing
Amarel(5565) Disputed
2 points

Humans are not the only things that value. All living things take action to maintain their life (it doesn't matter that the action is mindless). Life is inherently valuable to the living. Since living things are the only thing capable of valuing, and what life fundamentally values is itself, Life is the only thing that is inherently valuable.

Non-living things are not necessary, they just are. Life is necessary, though only to itself.

The statement above about necessities of physics is not a statement of value, but a statement of a effects and causes which simply are.

Side: This
atypican(4874) Disputed
1 point

To say something is necessary requires a value system to assert what that thing is necessary for.

Not necessarily. I could say gravity is necessary to the stability of planets. This necessity is in no way dependent on personal evaluations. I could say that adaptation is necessary for evolution. This is necessarily the case irrespective of personal values as well.

Side: This
King0Mir(67) Disputed
1 point

You could say that gravity is necessary to the stability of planets, but at the same time that it's unnecessary to the stability of atoms. So which is it, necessary or unnecessary? You generally need to say necessary to what. But here we don't. When you don't do this you imply that there is some ultimate implied metric that is in some sense superior to all others. For example, I could say the only thing that's necessary is we remember that we are all people. That's saying something. Something that assumes a universal value. Something that is in contradiction to the claim that nothing is necessary.

Now I do agree that the the implied value of a broad statement like that is not necessarily "personal". But it is, by nature of how it's used, somehow ultimate.

Side: Nothing
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

I could say gravity is necessary to the stability of planets.

You could, but that in turn presumes the necessity of the stability of planets. This is an ascription of personal valuation. The same is true of saying that adaptation is necessary for evolution; you are presuming the necessity of evolution which is also an ascription of value.

Side: Nothing
1 point

Quite actually, "nothing." If anything, nothing is necessary as contrast.

Side: Nothing
1 point

Necessary for what? With no further context given, I have to assume nothing.

Side: Nothing