Instigator / Pro
13
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#3195

There is a Universal Moral Law

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

Moral Law: Principles describing conduct that is right and wrong.

No solipsism.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for voting

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@Sum1hugme

That's the core problem with the concept of "duty".

It's something the capricious authority of the moment gets to define.

-->
@3RU7AL

The only context in which I can see possibly justifying a moral duty for a soldier to kill would be in a just war. Otherwise, I can't say that soldiers have a moral duty to kill. That's a different form of duty.

-->
@Sum1hugme

> I don't think we have a duty to act immorally.

Does a soldier have a duty to drop bombs ?

-->
@3RU7AL

"I'm pointing out that "respect for ones duty" is NOT a reward itself."

Yeah, sure. Respect doesn't have to be rewarding. Acting morally doesn't have to be rewarding.

"The feeling you get when you either self-recognize or when others recognize you for "respecting ones duty" that feeling of "I am a good person" that good feeling is the reward function."

The reward doesn't constitute the morality.

"A lot of people throughout history have used "respect for ones duty" to get people to do all kinds of atrocious things."

Okay? You asserted that there is no motivation besides feeling good to do ones moral duty, and I gave the example of respect for ones duty to the moral law as a defeater. Also, I'm calling on the motivation of respect for ones duty to act morally, so it makes no sense to say that's the same as calling on someone's respect for their perceived duty to do something immoral. I don't think we have a duty to act immorally.

-->
@3RU7AL

"Nope. A debate requires technical definitions. A debate resolution must be logically-coherent."

Which it is.

"If you check the definition of "truth" you'll find that it requires correlation with "fact" and "fact" must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary."

Truth is a property of sentences. We can know that all bachelor's are unmarried without meeting bachelor's and asking them.

"This is indistinguishable from moral impulse and or moral intuition and or moral preference and or PURE UNFETTERED OPINION."

Nope. Just because you define right as moral opinion does not mean that is correct. I gave a non-opinion based, right action in the debate.

"Does this inverse definition of "RIGHT" leave any room for morally neutral actions and or motives ?"

Yes, and I gave an example of an amoral motive in the debate.

-->
@Sum1hugme

> I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that respect for ones duty isn't motivated by reward, or that it isn't grounds for granting points in the debate?

I'm pointing out that "respect for ones duty" is NOT a reward itself.

The feeling you get when you either self-recognize or when others recognize you for "respecting ones duty" that feeling of "I am a good person" that good feeling is the reward function.

A lot of people throughout history have used "respect for ones duty" to get people to do all kinds of atrocious things.

The phrase "respect for ones duty" is a brainwashing technique.

The phrase "respect for ones duty" is an indirect appeal to authority.

-->
@Sum1hugme

> How much do you need defined to know what we're talking about? Just use the normal, applicable definitions, that's what you should assume.

Nope. A debate requires technical definitions. A debate resolution must be logically-coherent.

> Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

If you check the definition of "truth" you'll find that it requires correlation with "fact" and "fact" must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.

This means that PRINCIPLE requires TRUTH which requires FACT which requires EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY.

PRINCIPLE must be QUANTIFIABLE

> Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.

This is indistinguishable from moral impulse and or moral intuition and or moral preference and or PURE UNFETTERED OPINION.

Also, "justified" is begging the question somewhat.

> Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral

Does this inverse definition of "RIGHT" leave any room for morally neutral actions and or motives ?

-->
@3RU7AL

"'What do you mean by reward function?'

A reward function is a core reinforcement mechanism."

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that respect for ones duty isn't motivated by reward, or that it isn't grounds for granting points in the debate?

-->
@3RU7AL

How much do you need defined to know what we're talking about? Just use the normal, applicable definitions, that's what you should assume.

Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable.
Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral

-->
@Sum1hugme

> What do you mean by reward function?

A reward function is a core reinforcement mechanism.

-->
@Sum1hugme

"Moral Law: Principles describing conduct that is right and wrong."

Even worse.

PRINCIPLES = ?

CONDUCT = ?

RIGHT = ?

WRONG = ?

-->
@3RU7AL

What do you mean by reward function?

-->
@3RU7AL

I defined moral law in the description, and Intel defined universal in r1

-->
@Sum1hugme

"respect for ones duty" IS NOT A REWARD FUNCTION.

-->
@Sum1hugme

DEBATE RESOLUTION: "There is a Universal Moral Law"

UNDEFINED TERMS:

UNIVERSAL = ?

MORAL = ?

LAW = ?

-->
@3RU7AL

What terms are you referring to?

Vote bump

-->
@3RU7AL

respect for ones duty

-->
@Sum1hugme

> In the dick and Jane example, I never said it made her feel good. You're painting that motive onto her, so the criticism doesn't apply.

There is no reason to fulfil a "sense of duty" unless doing so makes you "feel good".

-->
@3RU7AL

In the dick and Jane example, I never said it made her feel good. You're painting that motive onto her, so the criticism doesn't apply.

-->
@Sum1hugme

The moral law can be considered objective in so far as it's intersubjective.

I would have opened with this.

-->
@Sum1hugme

If someone does not agree that this law applies to them, then they are wrong.

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

-->
@Intelligence_06

You started off strong with "Argument: Hume's Guillotine",

But then you wound yourself in circles muddying the water.

(IFF) you are capable of understanding this (AND) you value your own existence (THEN) you must value the lives of at least some of those on which you directly and indirectly depend (humans, plants, and animals)

-->
@Sum1hugme

In conclusion, as autonomous beings, we should be acting out of a sense of duty to the moral law we give ourselves. The reason we should respect the dignity of persons is because we are all rational beings. The exercise of that capacity for reason makes us worthy of dignity. Since it's the same capacity for reason, it is unqualified by the particulars of circumstance. It's the same Universal capacity for reason that delivers the moral law. So, to act autonomously, is to act according to a moral law we give ourselves, exercising our Reason. Not the particular reasons we have because of circumstance, but the reason that legislates A Priori, regardless of empirical ends.

I am a big fan of deontological ethics and the categorical imperative.

However, you seem to have quite a different understanding of both of these terms than I hold myself.

Jane sincerely believes that she donates to the needy because it is her duty.

However, Jane actually donates to the needy because she believes this act is part of what makes her a good person and she enjoys the feeling she gets when she believes she is a good person.

This is ultimately a selfish motive.

-->
@3RU7AL

You are quoting Pro, aren’t you.

-->
@3RU7AL

Happiness isn't intrinsically good

-->
@Sum1hugme

Desires are intrinsically motivating. They are not however, all that is intrinsically motivating. Right and wrong are also intrinsically motivating concepts. Since right and wrong are both concepts, then they are subject to the laws of Reason, such as the law of non-contradiction which states that to contradict oneself is inherently irrational. For this reason, the basis upon which our moral principles must lie is Reason alone. If my opponent was to question the reason of Reason, then he would implicitly be committing to using reason.

GOOD = things that make me happy
BAD = things that cause me pain or make me sad

-->
@whiteflame

Can do

-->
@Sum1hugme

Remind me, shouldn't be a problem.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@MisterChris

Please consider voting

Vote bump

-->
@Intelligence_06

My original draft got deleted, so I had to rewrite it as best I could this morning.

-->
@Sum1hugme

What took you so long?

-->
@Intelligence_06

Paragraph 2

-->
@Sum1hugme

Considering your R2 argument isn't exactly what we call "tiny", I don't know where in the argument you are talking about.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Apologies, in my round 2 I meant to say "...and thus have no moral responsibility."