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.

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:

I can't say I know enough on this subject to speak knowledgably about it, and it feels a bit awkward to provide a vote on it when I still feel as though there are elements of the main argument from Pro that I don't fully understand.

As I see it, what most of Pro's opening round aims to do is establish that a universal moral law is one derived from reason and is inherently a priori. In a theoretical sense, that makes sense to me as a basis for believing that it's possible that there is a universal moral law. I don't see Con challenge this point. However, I'll note that use of the word "possible" and how it is distinct from the topic at hand. It can't just be possible. It must be that there is such a universal moral law. Pro proposes that one exists, namely "Always treat persons as ends in themselves, and never solely as a means" but it's unclear why this specific moral perspective is a moral law.

Much of Con's responses detail reasons why individuals might perceive it as non-universal and might even disagree with it entirely, which doesn't start out as a strong response for me. If your definition of universal is that everyone must accept this (including inanimate objects and theoretical aliens for some reason), then I'd say that that is both an impossible standard and doesn't comport with the implicit definition ascribed to by Pro (later made explicit) that it must be universally binding as rational thought. It is, however, in response to that position that I think Con hits at an important point: that the actual process of figuring out whether this specific moral law is universal requires more than just a priori reasoning. In this sense, it's not a matter of whether there are those who disagree with it, but rather whether there is a mechanism to test it. Pro argues that this is a priori and therefore doesn't require a mechanism, but I'm struggling to find a place where he clearly reasoned that this specific moral law is universal without ascribing some kind of example to support that perspective. Saying that we should respect the dignity of persons because we are all rational beings just generally invites questions that the logic base that you could employ a priori is ill-equipped to handle.

I think much of Con's responses are more superficial than this, but they still hit at the basic point that more must be done to establish this specific rule as universal moral law, and that ends up being enough for me to vote his way.

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:

Pro lost me in round 1 by defining 4 levels of ethical discussion, while stipulating a universal moral law. Pro lost me again by rendering a description of personal desires, then defining autonomy and heteronomy, then saying desires are heteronomous, not autonomous when desires, while they may be shared, are personal motivations. Pro's argument fails on that point in round 1 and never recovers. Con successfully demonstrates that universal law is not at work her, rebutting that
Pro's "universal" does not apply if pro insists, in round 2 "In conclusion, the Universal Moral Law I have presented indeed applies to all rational beings." This totally ignores that irrational beings exist, even though pro even discusses irrationality. Again, argument by pro at cross purposes.

Con wins on sourcing with sources that support his argument, while Pro's sources are as confusing as the arguments they attempt to support.

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:

I'm calling this a tie because the core components of the debate, the terms themselves that comprise the debate resolution are never clearly defined.

This makes a "win" impossible.