Why would urging people who have zero food to offer food be any useful?
And why would a binding moral law propose something that does something useless in numerous amounts of cases?
"Does something useless" - My opponent did not explain what is "useless" in this law.
My opponent repeated the argument "Why would urging people who have zero food to offer food be any useful?"
Nowhere in the topic does it say "People should be urged". Therefore, I urge Con to read the topic better.
In fact, urging foodless people to give food doesnt result in people giving food. Therefore, "urging foodless people to give food" is clearly not what the topic says.
Keep in mind, that the proposal of the topic does propose something like this should there be an individual with zero or near zero food, due to the presence of the term “every person”.
The topic does not propose urging people who have no food to give food. The topic says that people should give food, not that they should be urged to give food.
As explained before, the word "should" means to do it if you can, since doing something that you cannot do is a contradiction. The description clearly stated that the word "should" is used together with being able to do it.
If you say ""you should do it" is false because "you cannot do it"",
then that means "you should do it =do it + you can do it". Therefore, you refute your own argument, since then "should" means to do it if you can.
If you say that "you should do it" includes "do it + you cannot do it", then you saying "you cannot do it" wouldnt prove the topic wrong.
Saying "it is incorrect to say "do it if you cant do it" because you cant do it" is circular reasoning.
“Every person gave to the people food” implies or straightforwardly means that every individual must give food to something, regardless if the offering is directed to people or not.
These are just blatant lies.
The topic states:
"It would be good if every person "gave to the people food" which those people need in order to live."
Therefore, the giving of food to the people happens when it is needed by those people so that they could live.
If people dont need any more food to live, then the amount of food they should be given is 0.
Further, the food is not given to "something". It is only given to those people who need that to live.
This includes cases where foodless individuals exists
This was already answered in the previous round, and in description.
(as they theoretically do exist due to their existence being not necessarily logically contradictory, in other words, that personhood is not determined necessarily by the possession of food).
This is just mindless rambling. There is no "theoretically exist". Things either exist either they dont. The topic does not include your fantasies.
Also, I never said "possession of food = personhood".
For this reason, the so-called “moral law” that Pro proposed would bring forth futile efforts(such as making food-less people give food).
This was already answered multiple times.
Nowhere in the topic does it state "make foodless people give food".
As explained before, the word "should" means to do it if you can. It doesnt mean to do it if you cant, since that is logical impossibility.
Such efforts are confirmed by Pro to be useless.
Such efforts are confirmed by Pro to be irrelevant to the topic.
Now, what is a moral law?
: a general rule of right living
especially : such a rule or group of rules conceived as universal and unchanging and as having the sanction of God's will, of conscience, of man's moral nature, or of natural justice as revealed to human reason
If my opponent tries to use the moral law as an argument because it was mentioned in the description, then my opponent should look again in the description where it says "everyone who can follow it, should follow it".
It doesnt say: "Those who cant follow it should follow it".
Rules mean that which should be followed. We have already seen that the word "should" means "do it if you can".
A significant amount of people within the confinements of this society have no, close to no, insufficient or subpar amounts of food.
My opponent didnt explain what he means by "significant". Significant amount of people are obese, so my opponent's argument is negated.
Also, "close to no food" does not mean no food.
About those people, they should be net recipients to food, not net contributors.
This is where my opponent starts arguing against himself. If we are in a situation where all those people cannot be net recipients to food, which happened in the past, then my opponent's argument is negated because those people cannot be net recipients. Further, if others dont have any food to give them, then they again cannot be net recipients.
So either "should" means "do it if you can" either throw your argument down the drain.
If food is exchanged involving such undernourished people giving food that they would need anyways for their vital quarters
Undernourished people are people who need to be given food to live. Therefore, if they only have little food, they give it to themselves, since that ensures that food is given to the people who need that food to live.
it would be logistically subpar as more resources are being transported than necessary.
When food is being transported to be given to the people who need that food to live, that saves human lives.
Human lives > resources.
To ensure the least possible quantity of necessary resources are being moved from points to points(which is the optimal outcome due to such a case approaching zero wasted resources, including fuel(and due to the conservation of mass and energy, transport without energy consumption is impossible, so the issue of wastage is worth considering))
Human lives > fuel
, only those with a surplus of food should give food, to those with shortages(including those with no food at all).
Those with shortages give food to themselves, since they need it to live. Those with extra food give the extra food to those who need that food to live.
That is what this topic says. Maybe I used too many big words...
For discussing this very case it is that we reach the conclusion, at that at the allocatively efficient equilibrium, “every person giving food to people in need” is simply untrue as those people in need do not need to give their own food(if any) to those in their own subset of people(in need) and should not for the sake of reducing wastage of resources.
As explained before, the topic does not say "Those in need of food should give food to others". Those in need of food to live give food to themselves. They cannot give to the "people", nor the topic says that they should give food to others and not themselves.
As a result, futile attempts of access such as those towards from people with insufficient food, are of negative effects due to such wastage.
People with insufficient amount of food, as explained for about 30 times by now, dont need to give their food to others nor does the topic say that they do.
However, if they do get food from others and have more than sufficient amount of food for themselves, and there is no one left who needs to get food to live, then they dont need to give food to anyone.
Of course, Pro could just attempt to dismantle my argument saying that “CON did not prove that conserving energy and resources is morally good”.
No, there is a simpler way of dismantling it.
Saving lives > Conserving energy and resources.
Plus, the Con is yet to prove that it is true that "Giving starving people food is bad because it wastes resources. Better let them die." is morally superior.
Then what is? Is objective morality even possible? I will leave this question here, realizing that this debate has 5 rounds.
Sorry, you need to present an argument, not a question.
However, bottom line: Following the moral law should ensure the acts following it being either positively contributional or noncontributional: But never negative.
This is an obvious blatant lie. Sometimes negative acts are required to do something good. For example, traveling to Africa carrying food to starving children is negative for you because it wastes your time when you could instead spend your time on the internet losing debates to me. However, even if traveling to Africa is bad for you, it is good for the starving children in Africa since you are bringing them food.
I can bring up another counterexample, where following the proposed “law” ensures in net negative effects.
Lets see you do that.
A person has a medical condition where he needs specialized food to live but those food cannot be properly digested by others.
So others dont need "to get that food" to live.
Such a person offers food towards “the people”.
I think you are a bit confused. The topic doesnt state ""give people food" which they dont need to live".
I like how you presented the example that is completely unrelated to the topic.
A member of “the people” consumes so and gets ill, when he could have been healthy as before if such special cases of people(former) are exemplified from “everyone” that give food.
Be noted of this case, shall we not?
No, we shall not. Food that makes you ill is not "food which you need to get to live.". In fact, getting food that makes you ill would shorten your life, along with making you unable to work, therefore reducing the "giving of food which people need to live".
Objective morality is not proven with rigid logic to be something that exists surely. Therefore, “it is good” cannot be declared with solid backing
Actually, it is objectively true that denying people of "food which they need to live" results in the death of those people.
However, this is not about objective morality.
If you say that starvation is not bad, or that "not starving =/= good", then surely that only means you have a crappy morality that most people would be disgusted by.
However, if you say "not starving =/= good", then I can simply say "not starving =/= not good", so "not starving=good". Therefore, if objective morality doesnt exist, then I am afraid that the topic cannot be disproven at all.
We all know that logic itself is based on unquestionable values. So is morality. So if morality is not objective, then neither is logic itself. That brings us to another awkward position where no objective logic exists that can disprove the topic, and no objective logic exists which could prove that the "topic was not proved correct". How awkward!
I have of course proved that:
1) This moral law would solve world hunger
2) This moral law would result in people who dont have enough food to live would be getting food which they need to live.
3) Should means do it if you can
4) People who have insufficient food will only give food to themselves, which results in no waste whatsoever.
Therefore, it is good.
