Instigator / Pro
25
1489
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1559

Hedonism

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
12
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
2

After 4 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
26
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

I will be arguing pro hedonism. You will be arguing con hedonism by showing an alternative philosophy to be better.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Meh, neither side convinced me and overall seems to be a tie.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con forfeited a round, so Pro gets conduct.
Judging by the debate description, the BoP seems to be shared, so I will judge the arguments accordingly.
Both participants argued that their own philosophies would lead to personal happiness and the benefit of others. Pro argued that, by definition, hedonism is the pursuit of happiness, so it inevitably leads to happiness. Furthermore, most people are not pleased by harming others, so in their search for pleasure, they will not harm others. Contrarily, Con argued that HBOY (Congrats to the participants for coining the name of this interesting philosophy) would by definition help yourself and others. Con pointed out that hedonism has the problem that some people are pleased by hurting others, thus giving hedonism an inescapable moral problem. As Pro pointed out, however, HBOY has the exact same problem if someone believes that pain helps other. Thus, both philosophies are weakened by this same problem.
Pro also attempted to show a contradiction in HBOY because it is impossible to always help yourself and others. But as Con pointed out, HBOY only says to "try" to help others. If helping yourself and others is not always possible, there is no contradiction because only trying is required.
Overall, the moral problems both philosophies face cancel each other out, so arguments are a tie.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments -
According to the debate description, Pro was to advocate for Hedonism over Con's chosen philosophy, and Con was to advocate for their chosen philosophy over Hedonism. In the end, both sides did a better job of savaging their opponent's philosophy than defending their own.

Con dealt what I consider to be a killing blow to Hedonism by pointing out that, for some individuals, committing horrible acts they enjoy would be in line with Hedonism. Pro attempted to counter by saying most people get pleasure from being good (essentially), but this does not negate the fact that Hedonism implicitly endorses murder if it makes the murderer happy. Since Pro fails to defend this position, Hedonism is sunk.

Pro, for their part, tore "HBOY" apart, and Con never managed to put the pieces back together. Pro's observation that HBOY runs into internal contradictions was a good start. Con pushed back by saying that HBOY merely requires you to *try* to help yourself and others, but without defining the limits and application of this injunction, it's unclear exactly how one is to live according to the principles of HBOY.

In sum, we have two defeated philosophies and no clear winner, at least in terms of arguments.

Sources and S&G -
Both are fine. At no point did I feel that sources were essential to this debate.

Conduct -
Con forfeited R1, thus, conduct goes to Pro.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Speed better tied his arguments to what we find in reality. Most people behave as if altruism is a better philosophy than hedonism as con notes when he says, "This is essentially what the average person does daily."

Pro argued that hedonism was profitable for the individual, but failed to show how it is better for society.

But cpro's greatest failing is when he says, about the contradiction in his argument,

"Can it not be? Can you not be interested in both your own well-being and that of others at the same time? I don’t see why not. Human beings are absolutely capable of holding conflicting, contradictory thoughts and emotions at the same time."

But the debate is not about whether people can hold contradictory beliefs, but whether such beliefs are better/more rational than noncontradictory beliefs.

Pro admits the contradiction, but still insists hedonism is better. Con has demonstrated to my satisfaction that Pro's argument is internally contradictory, and does not as accurately represent reality as altruism.