Instigator / Pro
3
1495
rating
28
debates
39.29%
won
Topic

An Objective Basis for Morality

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
0
1

With 1 vote and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1730
rating
29
debates
86.21%
won
Description
~ 901 / 5,000

Perhaps inspired by Undefeatable's Utilitarianism vs Bible debate, I recently had a dream where I proclaimed the way to decide right and wrong was running it through his logically consistent system. For example, restaurants are supposed to serve customers, but if the food arrives late with little excuse, this is clearly immoral because it is logically inconsistent with the restaurant's purpose. So I propose that if an action is logically consistent under most circumstances, it must be moral, and if it is mostly inconsistent, then it is immoral. Given the questioning and phrasing of Socrates method which defeats the majority of moral systems, is this alternative to Universalism more reasonable, and able to establish an objective moral basis?

I will argue for Objective Morality (not based on human feelings/thoughts)

Con will argue for subjective morality (based on human feelings/thoughts)

Added:
--> @Nevets

Sounds like an odd thing to complain about, as a majority of points in his favor is a majority of points in his favor. Anyways, done.

Added:

Removed by request:

Nevets
Added: 15 hours ago
Reason:
Argument - Pro opens by questioning the ambiguity of lying but does make a good argument strong argument that is easily comprehended. " Therefore, I would have to consider the exact situation. If I am lying to save an innocent man's life, and succeed, then no logical contradiction is formed, and lying becomes moral. However, if I lie to oppress someone and steal their fortunes, despite claiming to be good to them, this is a clear logical contradiction and lying is immoral in this situation. As you can see, Logicalism is much more clear than universalism.".. Con responds with some borderline criticisms regarding his opponents round 1, and offers an argument of his own which appears to translate to not everything is as black and white as Pro appears to be making it.. Pro comes back in round 2 and makes some very strong and convincing and easy to understand arguments and offers a critique regarding his opponents use of "ought". Con responds with some good examples of how not everything is black and white - "Premise 1: Humans need oxygen to live Premise 2: The earth is the only place where there is enough oxygen for humans to breathe, Conclusion: Humans have to live on the Earth to live"... At this point of the debate there is no winner or loser and it is a matter of opinion who one agrees with more. I may be inclined to buy Pros argument, but then what does he go and do? Forfeits. This means no argument of his own and no rebuttal of Cons argument.. Pro does not make amends either in the next round when he runs out of time. "Bleh ran out of time. Procrastination.".. The voting policy states that if a debater forfeits 40% of the debate then the argument can be handed to the opposition. Does that fact that Pro made it in time to write "Bleh ran out of time" enough to escape being viewed as a second forfeiture? Barely, but still offered absolutely nothing in terms of a rebuttal regards his opponents last argument, and Con is correct "My opponent has not rebuked my argument for two rounds consecutively, and my argument remains strong.", But as I actually thought that until Pro forfeited and succumbed to poor time keeping the argument was borderline and I may well have favoured Pro. Therefore I do not wish to punish the same crime of forfeiture and time keeping twice, and so will leave argument at a tie, as it is in fact a conduct violation and not an argument violation. - Tie

Sources - Pro only really ever took the time to produce one source. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014017509190016J) ... Whilst neither participant objected to each others use of sources, Con did use sources far more extensively, and no objections were raised. - Con

S & G - Neither stood out as making mass typos - Tie

Conduct - As I explained before, the forfeiture and bad time keeping is being punished by Conduct rather than argument loss. - Con

Added:
--> @Ragnar

Hi, the weakeredge has made a complaint to me on another comment section regarding my failure to award him with the argument as well as sources and conduct. The easy solution to this is to simply remove my vote. Can this be done please?

Added:
--> @Theweakeredge

Alright

Added:
Contender
--> @Sum1hugme

Yee, and I was confusing it with the standard rhetoric of a syllogism

Added:
--> @Theweakeredge

"A description of reality is referred to as an "if", and a prescription of reality is known as an "ought". "

Did you mean to say "is" instead of "if"

Added:
Contender
--> @gugigor

i think it suffers from the same thing all appeals to universalism do

Added:
Instigator
--> @Theweakeredge

what do you think? Is a watered down version of Universalism better? I tried poking at potential weaknesses, but couldn't find any obvious ones.