Utilitarianism is a Preferable Moral Foundation Compared to the Bible
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I am a Utilitarian and I believe the system is superior to following The Bible's teachings.
Bible Morality: "Ethics in the Bible refers to the system(s) or theory(ies) produced by the study, interpretation, and evaluation of biblical morals, (including the moral code, standards, principles, behaviors, conscience, values, rules of conduct, or beliefs concerned with good and evil and right and wrong), that are found in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. " -- Wikipedia
Utilitarianism: "Utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.[1][2] Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is to in some sense maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts. For instance, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as "that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness...[or] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered."" -- Wikipedia
I will be arguing majorly with John Stuart Mill's framework including improvements upon the basis of Utilitarianism.
Preferable Moral System: The preferred moral system would be more logically sound, have fewer contradictions, etc. This looks at the claims and stories/examples from the system creators and see if they enact the theory correctly.
Burden of proof is shared
- God smiting the 50,000 men for looking into the ark
- Deuteronomy 25:11 - if two men are fighting and a woman touches his private parts, you cut off her hand
- Peter 2:18 allows slavery and perversity
- Exodos 21:7~8 allows sex slavery
- Luke 16:18 considers divorce same as debauchery
- Kings 6:28~29 allows cannibalism
- Kings 138~12 allows incestuous rape
- Chronicles 21:14~15 has God smiting all the people in general rather than punishing an individual act
- a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
- the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth{...]God created mankind in his image;"(Genesis 1) (3)
"God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good." (Genesis 1) (3)
- he extends the law against murder (Exod. 20:13) to anger (21–26)10
- he extends the law against adultery (Exod. 20:14) to lust (27–30)
- he makes the law restricting divorce (Deut. 24:1) stricter (31–32)11
- he takes the law designed to prevent lying (Num. 30:2) further (33–37)
- he takes the law designed to restrain retaliation (Lev. 24:19–20) further (38–42)
- he extends the command to love one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18) to enemies (43–48)12 See Citation (4)
- the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
- the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
"the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness"
"Let's put a smile on that face" -Joker
Utilitarianism's foundation is precisely founded on desire, plus outcomes reaching that desire.
Morality is the objective standard by which each one of us is bound to live by.
I find it heavily illogical that right and wrong should have nothing to do with human desire
Logicae heavily misinterprets utilitarianism, arguing that it is "vague" [United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has the majority of nations able to decide]
Exodos 21:7~8 allows sex slavery
Argument - R1 Undefeatable starts out by building a case for Utilitarianism then begins attacking the bible by pointing out some contradictions and then ends with an attack on God, and then leaving some facts for his opponent to rebut.
Con - Con spends a great amount of time on the definition of morality, which Pro disagrees with in R2, Con then goes on to give a bible lesson which is pretty much common knowledge, and ends it with providing his/her own opinion. However I don't see Con rebut Pros arguments anywhere, and this is also picked up upon by Pro in R2.. However Con does make a rather good argument regarding the desires of Utilitarianism "That, as long as we think think an action will make us happy, it is good. Of course, this leads to horrible decisions, such as the choices of the socialist dictators in Germany, USSR, and as well as the CCP and DPRK etc.."
R2 - I have already pointed out a couple of criticisms from Pro regarding Cons R1 argument, such as their failure to agree upon definition and also Cons apparent luck of any type of rebuttal.. Pro then provides a counter argument to Cons criticisms regarding desire. But this is a matter of opinion really, and what really stands out for me at this point, and undefeatable hits the nail on the head, is this: "But okay, maybe voters won't buy this. Let's continue. Notice how Logicae heavily fails to refute all my round 1 arguments, proving that the bible fails under his very system.".. And I think the operative word is "all", and he is quite right to extend those arguments.
Undefeatable then offers his opinion regarding the bible, and then accuses Con of heavily misinterpreting utilitarianism. I wonder if this gets rebutted? Pro then offers some insight in to why his description is not vague, and then provides a good argument for why the bible cannot make decisions regarding current affairs, and then ends it by making Cons opinion on Utilitarianism look rather extreme and fundamentalist.
Con- Con strikes back by attacking the desire aspect of utilitarianism and heads for the most extreme example, though his/her argument is also very comprehendible and easily bought. Con then offers a rebuttal regarding the definition argument, which is also good. And like it or loath it, Con does offer a rebuttal to Pros contradictions, stating "What gives Undefeatable the right to make that judgement? Why should we believe Undefeatable's moral judgement? This very attack of the Bible rears its ugly head.".
R3 - For me, Pro starts out R3 with a very bad argument which is worthy of a conduct violation for bad time keeping, stating "I have no time again due to bad time management", and then extends all arguments, though Con has pretty much already responded to most of his arguments, and Pro is actually wrong about Con not responding to the contradictions, as stated here: "Logicae still hasn't proved how the bible isn't self-contradictory."... Whilst Con may not have "proven" how the bible is not self contradictory, he did offer a rebuttal and did attempt to. Whether his attempt was satisfactory or not is a different story.
Con - I feel Con made an error in R3 and really could have taken the initiative by at least responding to what Pro actually did write. And whilst Con was correct that Pro completely failed to Rebut his previous argument, Pro did write enough to respond to, and Con ended up with an even less sufficient R3 than Pro, writing only, "No rebuttable of past round. Extend.".
R4 - Again, as far as I can see, Pro is wrong about Con failing to rebut his contradictions. Con did offer his/her opinion on the matter, as has been pointed out. Pro finishes with presenting his opinion, minus any actual facts. This opinion really should have been presented in R3 though, I must point out.
Con - Any chance Con had of winning this debate which I currently consider a tie, just went out of the window with his forfeiture.
Argument - I can find no way to seperate them argument wise, as it really is matter of opinion and both have responded just as much and equally as little as one another - Tie
Sources - Both provide roughly the same amount of sources as eachother in the opening round, and then never again throughout the debate. Also none of the sources are objected to by either party - Tie
S&G - I saw nothing which stood out - Tie
Conduct - Whilst I was initially going to award Pro with a conduct violation for bad time keeping, Pro did still present an argument. Perhaps Con was lulled in to a false sense of security by what might have appeared to be a forfeiture, but actually was not, and ended up presenting not even an argument. At this point I would still have viewed Pros bad time keeping admission as the more serious, but Cons Forfeiture in R4 sees Pro take it by a whisker - Pro
Well it looks like my evaluation of debates like this about the Bible wasn't completely unfounded.
I accept.
May we find truth together!
To Truth!
-logicae
The Bible isn't a moral system. It can be the BASIS for a moral system, but it isn't one in of itself. The purpose of the Bible isn't to give an exhaustive moral rulebook, it's to outline the redemptive arc of humanity's history.
I think I will have to pass. It becomes extremely tedious having to try and focus on the actual topic while people just sling out a bunch of apparent "contradictions" in the Bible. Not saying that's what you would do by any means, nor am I saying that so-called problems in the Bible shouldn't be dealt with. I just feel like debates about the Bible end up turning into a bunch of mini debates about definitions and theology that don't allow the actual debate topic to be dealt with meaningfully.
Interested?