Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
R1 - Con waives, pro posts case
R2 - Con case + rebuttals, pro rebuttals
R3 - Con rebuttals, pro conclusion
R4 - con conclusion, pro waives
(David L. Thompson, Body and the Unity of Action, 2011)
A perceived object ... is experienced ... as a unity. It is given as one integrated thing that has other sides than the side currently perceived –otherwise it would be only a two dimensional appearance, a facade. In experiencing it as real, I perceive it as more than what appears from my current perspective ... the unity of the thing is paralleled by the unity of the perceiving body – the "lived body" or "body-subject." ... The seeing from different perspectives, the tasting, the hearing, etc. must all be done by the one, unified experiencing body. I must be one body for the cup to be experienced as one, real thing. ... I am not currently seeing the cup from the other side; it is the potential for the body to look at it from other sides that constitutes the cup with the meaning "real object," as opposed to a mere appearance. ... the lived body is not itself an object perceived. It is on the side of the perceiving. ...
Stephen K. White. As the World Turns: Ontology and Politics in Judith Butler. Polity, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Winter, 1999), pp. 155-177
ontologies emerge from the conjunction of two insights: acceptance of the idea that … fundamental conceptualizations of self, ... are contestable, and awareness that such conceptualizations are nevertheless unavoidable for any sort of reflective ethical and political life. ... ontologies do not proceed by categorical positings of, ... human nature or telos, ... Rather, they offer figurations of human being in terms of certain existential realities, ... These figurations are accounts of what it is to be a certain sort of creature: one entangled with language; conscious that it will die; possessing, despite its entanglement and limitedness, the capacity for radical novelty; and, finally, giving definition to itself against some ultimate background or "source" that evokes awe, wonder, or reverence. ...
And this precludes the AC because the way we construct the individual is a prerequisite to having moral obligations. Butler:
Giving an Account of Oneself. Judith Butler [Maxine Elliot Professor of rhetoric at Berkley] University press.
before we can speak about a self who is capable of choice, we must first consider how that self is formed. ... the sphere in which the subject is said to emerge is ‘‘ontological’’ in the sense that the phenomenal world of persons and things becomes available only after a self has been formed ... To describe this scene is to take leave of the descriptive field in which a ‘‘self ’’ is formed and bounded in one place and time and considers its ‘‘objects’’ and ‘‘others’’ in their locatedness elsewhere. The possibility of [ethics] … presumes ... the self and its ... world have ... been constituted, ...
L. Wittgenstein [kick ass philosopher]. Some Remarks on Logical Form. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 9, Knowledge,Experience and Realism (1929), pp. 162-171
propositions ... are ... products ... of simpler propositions. ... We must eventually reach the ultimate connection of the terms, the immediate connection which cannot be broken without destroying the propositional form as such. ... They, ... are the kernels of every proposition, ... On plane I figures are drawn, ... ellipses and rectangles of different sizes and shapes, and it is our task to produce images of these figures on plane II. ... We lay down the rule that every ellipse on plane I is to appear as a circle in plane II, and every rectangle as a square in II. ... from these images the exact shapes of the original figures on plane I cannot be immediately inferred. We can only gather from them that the original was an ellipse or a rectangle. ... The case of ordinary language is quite analogous. If the facts of reality are the ellipses and rectangles on plane I the subject-predicate and relational forms correspond to the circles and squares in plane II. ...
- Relativity - moral statements are false because there are variations of moral codes relative to distinct cultures. Mackie:
The argument from relativity has as its premise the ... variation in moral codes from one society to another ... and ... the differences in moral beliefs between ... groups ... within a complex community. ...: radical differences between ... moral judgments make it difficult to treat ... [them] as apprehensions of objective truths. ... Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people's ... participation in different ways of life. ... moral heretics and ... reformers, ... have turned against the established rules ... of their own communities for moral reasons, and often for moral reasons that we would endorse. But this can ... be understood as the extension, ... of rules to which they already adhered as arising out of an existing way of life. ...
- Queerness - humans do not have the moral faculty to know objective moral truths, therefore our moral statements are false. Mackie 2:
the argument from queerness ... has two parts, one metaphysical, the other epistemological. If there were objective values, then they would be ... qualities ... of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. ... if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else … none of our ordinary accounts of sensory perception or introspection or the framing and confirming of explanatory hypotheses or inference or logical construction of conceptual analysis, or any combination of these, will provide a satisfactory answer, [—] a special sort of intuition is a lame answer ...
what are we conceding? Well, firstly morality is subjective ...
"But we can't help everyone, and aren't needs kinda arbitrary?"
... So, either you admit this resolution is true, or you don't believe in morality to begin ...
...I am obligated morally to do so because I am not an emotionally devoid psychopath, nor a completely self-centred narcissist.
... in no shape or form can you award Con the win as he doesn't exist ...
Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!
I tether the win condition of Con to admit that emotions and morality rooted in obligation derived from subjective duties and meanings attributed to things ...
... which will then tear apart everything Con has built their case upon ...
Due to the waives, I'm counting Pro's R1 and Con's R2 as R1, and will continue in this manner throughout the debate.
R1: Pro concedes that morality is subjective. This is an interesting start, but it does give a lot of ground to Con from the get-go. He then tethers the moral obligation to subjective emotion, stating that, "I am obligated morally to do so because I am not an emotionally devoid psychopath." That is, his emotions are his obligation to help others. By tying moral obligation to emotion, he is able to argue that people without that obligation are psychopaths. Furthermore, he claims that in order to argue that people have no moral obligation to help others, one is forced to argue that morality does not exist.
The inherent problem with that argument is that Con has no issue with arguing that morality does not exist. In fact, he takes the position that, if morality is subjective, then "all moral statements are false." He also asserts that inductive reasoning is false. However, he does not provide evidence for this. Instead, he quotes a philosopher who agrees with this position. However, just because a person has a PhD next to their name does not mean that quoting their opinions is evidence. Quoted bare assertions are still bare assertions. Con also argues that individual identity does not exist. Again, rather than provide an argument to back that up, he quotes the bare assertions from people with PhDs beside their names.
Con rebuts Pro's argument by pointing to Pro's concession that morality is subjective, then it is impossible to have an objective moral obligation. He also argues that the appeal to emotions doesn't give any warrant for moral obligations.
R2: Pro misinterprets Con, thinking that Con denied our existence in total. However, his rebuttal that it would be impossible to vote for Pro as he doesn't exist still applies to Con's actual assertion that individual identity doesn't exist, so that point is effectively refuted. Pro then makes a confusing statement that Con dismisses as nonsense. That was a mistake, because after parsing it out, I found that it actually made an effective point. "I tether the win condition of Con to admit that emotions and morality rooted in obligation derived from subjective duties and meanings attributed to things." At first, this seems like mumbo jumbo. When parsed, you can see that A (emotions and morality rooted in obligation) was derived from B (subjective duties and meanings attributed to things). Pro's argument here is that morality and the obligations thereof are derived from subjective duties and subjective meanings. With this, he is attempting to draw out moral obligations from subjectivity. However, he drops Con's argument that inductive reasoning is invalid. He then repeats his assertion that denying the moral obligation to help others is to deny morality.
Con begins by repeating his argument that, if morality is subjective, there cannot be any objective moral statements. He does attempt to defend his assertion that individual identity doesn't exist by pointing to the philosophers he cited. However, as I said earlier, quoting bare assertions from people with PhDs doesn't qualify as evidence. He then admits the truth of Pro's confusing statement. However, since he's arguing that objective moral statements can't be made, acknowledging the existence of subjective morality doesn't hurt his case.
R3: Both sides essentially just restate their cases and don't introduce any new material.
Neither side had issues with sources, conduct, or S&G, so the only issue here is arguments. Pro's take on the debate is interesting. Arguing that moral obligation is derived from subjective emotion brilliantly works around Con's case. However, Con's case ultimately prevails. His argument that objective moral statements cannot be made if morality is subjective stands. By appealing to emotion, Pro makes a good case but ultimately succeeds in highlighting the failure of his side. So long as people have emotions of sympathy for others, he establishes that they have a sort of moral obligation. However, his mention of psychopaths is ultimately self-defeating, because they have no such emotions and therefore lack any obligation. He demonstrated that some people have a moral obligation to others, but failed to show that everyone does. Thus, Con wins the debate.
Congratulations to both debaters. This one was interesting and close. I think RM could have won if he'd put more effort into it and connected more dots, but that didn't happen this time around, although I was impressed by his ability to make a good argument even in a short round. Even so, both sides did well.
1. Opening
Pro basically says that to not agree to some degree of obligation to help others in need of help, is to rooted in not being “an emotionally devoid psychopath, nor a completely self-centred narcissist.”
Some strong pathos appeals, some quite irrational, but extra credit for mentioning that cats need help (a little off topic, since of course we have a moral obligation to cats; but the debate is about people).
Pro seems to base his case on being either right or morality not existing. I’ll pretty much give the debate to him if con relies on morality is a wholesale lie (such would be a good debate topic, but it would be quite the bastard move to try in a debate he started....). Conversely, con gains significant ground if he shows morality existing but the resolution to be false for valid reasons.
Con wisely counters using pro’s own words, and points out: “outside of the [pathos] appeal there's zero warrant as to why individuals have moral obligations to help others.”
2. Ontology (the nature of being)
This is such a weird one, as con is the instigator, but he’s pulling what very closely resembles a Kritik. Glancing at the comment section, I do see that he gave double warning this was a philosophy debate (the other obvious option would be a politics debate, to imply something about what some story on the news).
So people might not exist as referenced in the resolution; and if they do, the “contents of their agency is always changing.” And it was formed by other people anyway.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
3. Epistemology (the nature of knowledge)
Con goes way deeper than is needed here, basically saying pro’s case is inductive and thus no good. I don’t find this to be strong, or directly connected to the arguments in question for this debate.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
4. Metaethics (the nature of ethics)
Con argues that the normative obligation is false because it’s not always true within other cultures (this would have been stronger if directly connected to other cultural groups, such as the millionaires pro mentioned).
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
5. We don’t exist
Pro makes a case that con made a case that we don’t exist. As a literate person, this is obviously false. Pro even uses his final round to mostly just extend this...
Pro Wins
My reasons...
1. This whole debate, for me, boils down to the existence of an individual.
- If the individual does not exist then how could they have a moral obligation of any kind, which is what Con would argue, per C1
- If the individual exists than do they have a moral obligation to help those in need. Pro would say that if you are not a psychopath than you have an intrinsic obligation to help those in need.
- My thoughts: This "C1" argument by Con is very weak against Pro's appeal to the reader's own sense of humanity.
2. The other point in this debate that is important, in my view as a judge, is the subjectivity of morality argument
- Pro concedes that morality is subjective, but claims even in subjective morality looking at objectively one would have to agree that morality is a part of the human empathetic condition and therefore, again unless one is a psychopath, morality is foundational to humanity. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)
- Con uses Pro's concession of subjective morality and alludes to their "Identity is Fluid" argument.
- My thoughts: Con's use of the "Identity is Fluid" argument was well played against Pro's concession of subjective morality but was it enough?
Final comment. DId Pro do enough to prove that "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need?" Though it was close, what flipped my vote toward Pro, is their appeal to humanity and the intrinsic human empathetic condition. This appeal is was very powerful and, imho, proved Con's "C1: Ontology" argument invalid, which was critical to Con's side of the debate.
This is a simple decision. Pro’s argument functions as one large concession. Con’s argument that the subjectivity of his impacts fundamentally invalidates any attempt to affirm the resolution, and Pro drops that, instead focusing back on his appeals to emotion and some rather troubling ad hominem positions against the voters. Assuming I didn’t like that, though, I have a lot of other ways to make this vote simple. Con’s argument about individual identity not existing or being fluid if it does exist goes either fully dropped or mishandled by Pro, who equates the nonexistence of identity with nonexistence in general. That misunderstanding does nothing to bolster his case, nor does dropping the burdens debate that ascribes Pro a clear and unmet burden to meet a specific standard of support for his argument. In the end, Pro left too much on the table to justify voting for him, and his argument doesn’t do enough to sway a voter on this resolution. Hence, I vote Con.
This was an interesting topic, and debate. Let's do an overview of what happened.
So Pro started off this debate, with compelling arguments about empathy and being human. Pro even states how there's a limit to what we can do (first we must take care of our selves). I find that this cements Pro's case ever further, and it provides a clearer definition to Pro's view.
Con then followed, providing three philosophical arguments (metaethics, ontology, and epistemology). All three were backed up with quotes from reliable sources.
Pro then goes. Pro states how Con's formatting is off, and then proceeds to argue against Con's text, and supports his own.
Con then shapes his text into a similar fashion, with supports of his own text, and arguing of Pro's text.
At this point forward, the debate kind of falls apart. Both sides are pointing out the flaws in the other sides text indirectly, instead of arguing directly. A lot of repetition and back and forth here.
So here's my final say. Pro made arguments about emotion and empathy, and how it's basically doing the right thing. Con makes arguments relating to philosophical claims and theories. In terms of arguments, I felt like Con had the better case, however, Pro does a great job with clash, nullifying the arguments.
I acknowledge that new arguments weren't supposed to be in Round 2 and 3, however, I expected a more in depth analysis or extension of previous arguments. I also fell like the clash could have been improved, as it sounded like a back and forth conversation. Maybe try providing new evidence to support previous claims (if that's allowed)? But a debate with only one round of actual arguments but four rounds of actual debate is something I would never do.
So I concede that it was a tie.
End.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 point awarded to Con
>Reason for Decision:
1. Opening
Pro basically says that to not agree to some degree of obligation to help others in need of help, is to rooted in not being “an emotionally devoid psychopath, nor a completely self-centred narcissist.”
Some strong pathos appeals, some quite irrational, but extra credit for mentioning that cats need help (a little off topic, since of course we have a moral obligation to cats; but the debate is about people).
Pro seems to base his case on being either right or morality not existing. I’ll pretty much give the debate to him if con relies on morality is a wholesale lie (such would be a good debate topic, but it would be quite the bastard move to try in a debate he started....). Conversely, con gains significant ground if he shows morality existing but the resolution to be false for valid reasons.
Con wisely counters using pro’s own words, and points out: “outside of the [pathos] appeal there's zero warrant as to why individuals have moral obligations to help others.”
2. Ontology (the nature of being)
This is such a weird one, as con is the instigator, but he’s pulling what very closely resembles a Kritik. Glancing at the comment section, I do see that he gave double warning this was a philosophy debate (the other obvious option would be a politics debate, to imply something about what some story on the news).
So people might not exist as referenced in the resolution; and if they do, the “contents of their agency is always changing.” And it was formed by other people anyway.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
3. Epistemology (the nature of knowledge)
Con goes way deeper than is needed here, basically saying pro’s case is inductive and thus no good. I don’t find this to be strong, or directly connected to the arguments in question for this debate.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
4. Metaethics (the nature of ethics)
Con argues that the normative obligation is false because it’s not always true within other cultures (this would have been stronger if directly connected to other cultural groups, such as the millionaires pro mentioned).
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
5. We don’t exist
Pro makes a case that con made a case that we don’t exist. As a literate person, this is obviously false. Pro even uses his final round to mostly just extend this...
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote meets the minimum requirements in the Voting Policy for the vote to not be removed.
************************************************************************
this is utter bs. Your head mod of voting is mocking me saying I didn't address Con in the Round by quoting only sentence from me.
I'll try to go over this in the morning.
If I may, here is my short 1 sentence take on each of Con's "C" arguments along with a brief reason for why I voted for Pro. Perhaps I should have gone into more detail in the vote section?
C1: Ontology - Individuals do not exist therefore they can not have a moral code and therefore there is no moral obligation.
-Pro countered by invoking "epistemological nihilism" to this argument which I thought was a brilliant strategy and Pro's continued proposition that if Con does not exist he can not be voted for was very astute.
C2: Epistemology - Specific parts of a resolution can not be proven true therefore to use inductive reasoning to prove said resolution is a "fool's errand" (my words)
-In my opinion, this argument was a bit of non sequitur, though I enjoyed the geometric 2 plane theory. I say non sequitur because Con's statement that "inductive reasoning is false" does not have any supporting basis in truth and does not follow any other referenced argument. I don't believe Pro alluded to this argument, which I thought was wise since the argument was a non sequitur.
C3: Metaethics - I must admit I was a bit confused by Con's overall point of C3. It seemed to me that Con was arguing that morality is subjective due to the differences in cultures among people. But then Con opened with a point about relativity that all "moral statements are false," but that did not follow with the previous point about subjective reality.
-The fact that Pro somewhat conceded the moral subjectivity point makes this argument a valid rebuttal point for Con. However, the fact that Con's argument also concedes that there is some moral code among cultures even though there is a "fluidity" to that morality leaves open the point that morality does exist.
-This C3 argument begs the question is Con making an argument that morality does not exist or that it does exist? It would have been helpful if Con would have chosen a consistent argument and stuck with it. Pro's side of the debate was much more consistent, another reason to vote for Pro.
Not interested, then?
You are lying
If you want me to elaborate, I can. It's mostly going to be directly quoting Zaradi because you dropped his points on the matter, but I'm willing.
He said your argument functioned *like* a concession, not that you conceded.
Whiteflame lied and said I even remotely conceded and didn't elaborate on anything like that.
Thanks for the votes!
@sigma
I have a couple questions.
First, when you say "Con uses Pro's concession of subjective morality and alludes to their "Identity is Fluid" argument.', what do you mean? It was my belief that C1 and C3 functioned independently of one another.
Second, how did you evaluate C3?
Third, how did you evaluate the attacks I made against Pro's case?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [DynamicSquid] // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
<3 you tej
Disclaimer: I’m a feminist, I just can’t understand a word Judith Butler says and am not a fan of her thanks to the Avital Ronell thing.
My reaction at Zaradi’s third card:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpzVc7s-_e8
Oh no no no. I still think it's a tie. It's just wanted to include more reasoning to my decision. Sorry if you misinterpreted that.
I mean, I never asked him to change his vote. I just wanted some elaboration.
you can't just change your vote to appease a debater. I won this debate if you actually understand what I did with the chaotic strategy of saying 'voter your emotions decide this' and how I turned it against Con's own premises. You think it was a tie, don't change that. It's about you and your interpretation. If you want to 'compare' arguments, compare ALL together not one by one.
K, give me a while to change my vote
Just C3 is fine, like I've been asking.
Oh... so you want me to directly compare your arguments, against Con's arguments?
It's a pretty straight-forward question. I'll try to be more clear, though, so my apologies if this comes off as rude.
Your RFD boils down to "Pro made arguments. Con made arguments. Both sides clashed. I wanted to see more. So it's a tie." and doesn't really go any deeper than that. Hence why I want to know how specific arguments influenced this decision. So to make my question really simple:
Did you or did you not evaluate C3? If no, why not? If yes, what weight, if any, did you give the argument? If none, why?
No? Why would I do that?
I just don't seem to understand your question. Do you want me to rate how good your C3 argument was or something like that?
That doesn't answer my question >.> it kind of feels like you're intentionally dodging the question tbh
Agreed.
Do you prefer a topic with a more supportable base? Like something that uses facts to back it up?
C3 was viewed like 1 and 2. I considered them as three separate arguments.
"Do you mean C3 specifically? Or how it ties into the whole debate?"
I want to know how you evaluated C3 in your voting decision.
1. I feel like both of you should have stayed with brief points in the first round, and expanded them in the second and third rounds (or, whatever round comes next).
For you, maybe try explaining what those three topics are in your own words, and explain (again, in your own words) how they support your side. And in rounds two and three, then provide the quotes backing up this claim.
2. Do you mean C3 specifically? Or how it ties into the whole debate?
Thanks for the vote. Two questions:
1. What, in your eyes, would've been better extensions?
2. How did you evaluate C3?
Dude, chill with the psychopath talk. This topic is an old high school debate topic I competed on that I enjoyed and I wanted to do another one. My arguments are almost never a reflection of my actual beliefs.
Enjoy your christmas.
Xmas eve is big thing for my family and I honestly don't care much about this debate. It's a fact and you're a psychopath if you're Con. It's that simple. Thanks for the reminder, but your wily waus probably won you the debate for all I know. I'll post last minute something.
A friendly reminder that you have less than 12 hours to post your final round.
Debates about morality like this one bother me. You either have to establish the truth of an objective system of morality or appeal to the lowest common denominator and hope that you have common ground with your opponent to build on. Otherwise, it's impossible to objectively make a case.
I'm starting to get real tired of everyone calling anything that's vaguely philosophical a k.
It's not a politcs thing
I agree
This topic is pretty open ended, which can be cool, but can also be annoying.
I mean, the resolution is pretty clearly "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." As for weed, I was just playing along with your example, though it was a shitty one to compare to this res in particular.
If that's the case then what is the debate even about? It's an objective fact whether or not weed is legal in a given legal code.
Then it would be up to the person saying weed is illegal to say which legal code should be the one voters look at and why. That's not my job as con, though.
But it's like arguing "Weed is illegal." In some legal codes it is in some legal codes it isn't.
There is no "context" to the debate. There's a topic. Its pro's job to affirm the topic and con's job to negate the topic.
Not the specific content of your arguments no, I'm trying to determine what the context of the debate is.
Is it: "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." is [insert specific moral theory here]
Or is it: Any moral theory that includes "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." as a precept is incorrect?
Are you asking me what I plan on arguing?
But what's the counter? That it isn't a moral obligation within that theory or that theory shouldn't be selected in the first place?
The pro is certainly free to make an argument for whatever moral theory they believe should be used.
What's the measure of "morality" here? If you are asking if there is at least one system of morality that makes this an obligation, that's an automatic decision. I think we can agree that, out of all the systems of morality, at least one of them says Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
On the flip side, if you are asking if all systems of morality have this as a requirement, that's also an automatic decision. I also think we can agree that there is at least one system that *doesn't* say Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.
Or is the assumption here that there is some sort of intrinsic, objective morality that exists and we are arguing whether or not "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need" is part of that system?
I'm more angling for the philosophical aspects of this topic, hence it being under the philosophy category, but those are certainly interesting thoughts.
It depends. If someone can´t depend on themselves, then yes. But if you can depend on yourself, then no. Both liberals and conservatives agree with this. The thing is, what counts as being able to work? I have a lenient definition. Anyone who isin´t both severely physically and mentally disabled while out of school should have a job and should not receive welfare.