Instigator / Pro
1
1511
rating
18
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#5270
Opening the purple box can never be morally justifiable.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1469
rating
340
debates
40.88%
won
Description
Imagine that you are given a purple box by a wizard. Attached to the box is a note that reads "If you open this box, ANYTHING could happen." Let us imagine that this statement is true, after all, a wizard gave it to you.
Assuming that opening the box could result in any outcome imaginable, can opening the box ever be morally justifiable?
My claim is that opening the box can never be morally justifiable.
So to win this debate, you must give me an example of a situation in which it would be morally justifiable to open the box.
Round 1
Pro
#1
By definition, the purple box could do anything once opened.
Opening the purple box could result in any outcome imaginable.
Opening the purple box could also result in any outcome unimaginable.
Even if you cannot imagine a worse situation than the one you are currently thinking of, opening the box could result in a worse situation. The box is not bound by logic. So for any situation, opening the box could make that situation worse.
Think of the worst pain imaginable, multiply that by 251, and then imagine enduring that pain for 251 years.
The box could do worse than that, and so it is obvious that opening the box can never be morally justified.
Con
#2
"By definition, the purple box could do anything once opened."
It could do anything such a something "morally justified". Keywords: could do anything.
"Opening the purple box could result in any outcome imaginable."
It could result in any outcome imaginable such as "moral justification".
"Opening the purple box could also result in any outcome unimaginable."
It could result also in any outcome unimaginable that once known can be classified or labeled as "moral justification".
It could result in an unimaginable "moral justification".
"Even if you cannot imagine a worse situation than the one you are currently thinking of, opening the box could result in a worse situation. "
That or the opposite naturally.
"The box is not bound by logic. So for any situation, opening the box could make that situation worse."
That or greater.
"Think of the worst pain imaginable, multiply that by 251, and then imagine enduring that pain for 251 years.
The box could do worse than that, and so it is obvious that opening the box can never be morally justified."
This is a non sequitur. When you say "could do worse", it does not line up with "can never be".
Why is that?
"Could " is expressing possibility while "never be" is impossibility.
You put them side by side, it's straightforward to see it's a mismatch there.
The box opened could result in what you wish to call a more worse case scenario . So opening it could be, could be what you call morally unjustified.
Opening it could result in an improvement of a situation. So we're talking about probability. Since it was mentioned about the box not being limited or bound by logic, well if you're near destitute or broke, you open it up, it's an endless money stash all your own. It could be. It could be.
It could be what'll make this whole world a utopia, paradise, ending war, bringing peace, ending hunger, disease, whatever. It's all hypothetical.
Some people look at what they see as moral justification in principle. Meaning even with the possibility of moral justification in an act, it is ruled as a morally unjustified act because the possibility was there for the opposite.
But based on what was put in the first round ahead of me, it was outcome related.
Based on what could be an adverse result, so therefore can never be "morally justified". But when the box is opened to reveal a photo , truism quote to thwart a suicide attempt or to just plainly save a life, if we're going to say saving lives is "morally justified" but the act of doing just that isn't, we're telling a lie.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I will refer to the opener of the box as 'Ted' from now on.
I said:
"Think of the worst pain imaginable, multiply that by 251, and then imagine enduring that pain for 251 years.The box could do worse than that, and so it is obvious that opening the box can never be morally justified."
You said:
"Could " is expressing possibility while "never be" is impossibility.You put them side by side, it's straightforward to see it's a mismatch there.
There is no mismatch there, you just need to think better.
Ted understands that opening the box could result in something terrible, and therefore Ted has already committed to the possibility of a terrible outcome by opening the box. Even if opening the box yields a positive outcome, I am arguing that Ted has already committed an immoral action by putting the fate of the universe in jeopardy, aka opening the box.
That brings me to my next point; consent. Since opening the box could kill any human in existence, It is only morally justifiable to open the box if you can be sure that everybody on earth has consented to having the box opened. That would be impossible. Thus, opening the box can never be morally justified.
The purple box is like a game of Russian roulette, except for the fact that you force everyone in existence to play.
I want to ask the judges this:
Would you be fine with somebody else opening the box without your knowledge?
Con
#4
"There is no mismatch there, you just need to think better."
This is the problem. When you try to think better than necessary you just complicate and confuse yourself up. Like trying to fix something that don't need fixing or improvement.
What could be means possibility. What could NEVER be means impossibility.
Now just think right. Think right about that . Is impossibility the same as possibility?
If we're going to be correct and I certainly will, these are TWO DIFFERENT things. Two different things don't match so therefore it is a mismatch. Do you follow?
Hopefully you do this time.
"Ted understands that opening the box could result in something terrible, and therefore Ted has already committed to the possibility of a terrible outcome by opening the box. Even if opening the box yields a positive outcome, I am arguing that Ted has already committed an immoral action by putting the fate of the universe in jeopardy, aka opening the box."
Yes this is like I said in the last round. See I'm way ahead of the opposing side. The opposing side is arguing based on the principle of risking a negative outcome, thereby the act is automatically by default in and of itself is so called immoral or morally unjustified regardless.
Only question I have is, is doing something that is called moral or morally justified a morally unjustified doing?
"That brings me to my next point; consent. Since opening the box could kill any human in existence, It is only morally justifiable to open the box if you can be sure that everybody on earth has consented to having the box opened. That would be impossible. Thus, opening the box can never be morally justified."
Is it justified to murder someone that has consented to it?
Is it justified to save somebody's life without their consent?
According to the law, it doesn't just boil down to consent. There are instances where consent doesn't enter in for justification. There are things with children that are done for their good regardless of their knowledge because they can't fully understand anyway.
"The purple box is like a game of Russian roulette, except for the fact that you force everyone in existence to play."
Depending on the circumstances, who's to say the box has to be opened? We're only talking about what would it be called opening the box?
Depending on the circumstances, if the world is in jeopardy of coming to an end, being that this hypothetical box can possess the power to reverse calamity to peace with all living beings, the outlook of justification is changed regardless of the risk of an adverse effect also coming with opening the box or whatever act there is.
"I want to ask the judges this:
Would you be fine with somebody else opening the box without your knowledge? "
Remember readers, the opposing side was arguing outcomes in the first round. Didn't articulate much on the principle of it. So I flushed that out . Now it's flipped flopped to the principle of consent, knowledge, informed consent, along side probable adverse risk.
Character limit closing in so I yield here.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Eating rat poison could kill you, and therefore you should never do it.
"Could " is expressing possibility while "never" is impossibility.You put them side by side, it's straightforward to see it's a mismatch there.
This is kindergarten logic. Judges, please do not fall for this cheap trick.
Is it justified to murder someone that has consented to it?
You are correct in saying that consent does not always make an action morally justifiable. People don't always know what's best for themselves.
For example, Ted doesn't know what is best for himself, and now Ted has opened the purple box!
Remember readers, the opposing side was arguing outcomes in the first round. Didn't articulate much on the principle of it. So I flushed that out . Now it's flipped flopped to the principle of consent, knowledge, informed consent, along side probable adverse risk.
It was always about risk. That's what the purple box is; a chance to gamble with the universe.
Also, this is a hypothetical situation in which peoples lives are at stake. It is not cheating for me to talk about consent.
Remember readers, I did not flip-flop, I sandle. VOTE PRO.
Con
#6
"Eating rat poison could kill you, and therefore you should never do it."
I think the opposing side was struggling to come up with a good analogy. How does this equate to the topic?
Does rat poison have an element of doing something justifiable to anybody?
Notice how the opposing side failed to tie this point into it also.
Also is there really a "could kill you" about this?
Another failed point.
This type of substance I'm sure is always perceived as fatal therefore you should never ingest it to hold on to dear life .
This analogy was cherry picked as far as I'm concerned to illustrate a postering representation of the opposing side's case versus mine. But it is not a true representation of the topic.
A non disingenuous depiction of the topic would be cutting a wire to a bomb.
The bomb is set to go off after some time. Cutting a wire could speed it up possibly unimaginably so making what was perceived as the worse situation anybody could come in contact with, cutting one wire could make it even more worse.
Remember the context in the opposing side's position taken from the first round.
"Even if you cannot imagine a worse situation than the one you are currently thinking of, opening the box could result in a worse situation. "
But cutting a wire could also rid the bomb going off altogether.
The opposing side can't deny that by making the following statement this individual made.
"Opening the purple box could also result in any outcome unimaginable."
"This is kindergarten logic. Judges, please do not fall for this cheap trick."
WELL THERE YOUUUU GOOOO. Taking that you graduated out of kindergarten, why are you disputing the point about what mismatching is, like you don't get it?
Being that it can be understood at a kindergarten level, what's your problem?
You have no rebuttal for it so you derail with sideline communication. Calling it a trick and LOGIC.
So logic is a trick. We gotta get you back to kindergarten.
"You are correct in saying that consent does not always make an action morally justifiable. People don't always know what's best for themselves.
For example, Ted doesn't know what is best for himself, and now Ted has opened the purple box!"
Thank you for dropping your consent argument to concede and people that don't know what's best for them have authority over them to make them kind of decisions. They're usually called parents and guardians. You didn't say these kinds of authorities can't exist in this hypothetical subject.
"It was always about risk."
I didn't say flipped to risk, I said along side it meaning adding on to it
"That's what the purple box is; a chance to gamble with the universe.
Also, this is a hypothetical situation in which peoples lives are at stake. It is not cheating for me to talk about consent.
Remember readers, I did not flip-flop, I sandle. VOTE PRO."
We can all vote on you retracting your consent argument.
Good topic though. Pretty original of you comrade.
Round 4
Pro
#7
First, think about your family. Now think about Ted.
Ted just opened the purple box, and now your family is in imminent danger.
Opening the purple box is selfish.
Furthermore, if you have a stable life, opening the purple box is stupid.
Even if you have nothing to live for, don't be selfish.
Everyone has to face the consequences of opening the purple box, not just you.
Climate change, hunger, and war are all manmade problems, and the world doesn't need a magic box to solve them.
#VOTE PRO
Con
#8
"First, think about your family. Now think about Ted.
Ted just opened the purple box, and now your family is in imminent danger."
The opposing side is blatantly ignoring a possible good outcome. I understand that the bias is there for defending your own side. But to keep up the full integrity of the topic, the opposing side has to agree that there is possibility for a good outcome. So to say THERE IS imminent danger is disingenuous. For the opposing side to be honest with the hypothetical situation that the opposing side has crafted, the statement should be "could be in imminent danger".
We're dealing with what could be and probability. It is not based on dealing with an aftermath that is obvious or else there'd be no debate in that.
The opposing side has to consistently shift the goal away from possible outcomes to absolute known ones to make the opposing case look better. Otherwise there will be conceding to the fact of an answer to the question I believe I presented several times. Is it "morally unjustified" to do something that is "morally justified"?
With the correct answer of "no" as it would be a non-sequitur otherwise, you can't say opening the purple box can never be "morally unjustified" being that "moral justification" could be part of the picture.
That is the true dilemma the opposing side cannot come to terms with. The box is opened, now the family, the world is in flourishing fortune. But I won't force a point not integral to the topic. The appropriate point to make is, opening the box could result in flourishing fortunes. Inserting "family" trying to appeal to emotion is also obvious as a last desperate resort to invalidate my case.
"Opening the purple box is selfish."
Would it still be selfish if it ended all wars, ended all sickness and disease, added 50 years to everyone's life, freed people that were held captive, etc.?
All of this is possible according to this hypothetical is it not?
Again, the opposing side is moving the goal to an absolute known negative in attempt to make the opposing case appear stronger. But this can't be done by not sticking to your own rules.
"Furthermore, if you have a stable life, opening the purple box is stupid."
Unless you don't have a stable life. This topic I can see others making the point in the comments, that it can go both ways. Both of us can make solid arguments from a positive and negative look. When you use "could be", you open the door to swing both ways at the point. Opening the box bottom-line could make it worse or better for you. It just depends on all the factors worth opening it or not. Again, it does not have to be opened.
"Even if you have nothing to live for, don't be selfish.
Everyone has to face the consequences of opening the purple box, not just you."
Everyone has to reap the benefits of opening it as well if that is the case, not just you or everyone but you. See a person can be selfish opening that box for selfish reasons right, it turns out that opened box helped everyone to be better off but the opener. The opener could of been even a sacrifice.
Either way baby , either way.
"Climate change, hunger, and war are all manmade problems, and the world doesn't need a magic box to solve them."
Then why haven't they been solved? Apparently it takes more than this hypothetical box along with a prayer and miracle to solve these issues.
Can I get a witness over here?
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Fun ethical thought experiment
Ultimately con began to lose ground with me with what he thought was a coup de grâce. That the box could potentially produce something named ‘moral justification,’ doesn’t make Ted morally justified when he risked everything for everyone without any consent other than his own.
A lot of the problem is engaging in semantics, instead of engaging with the thought experiment. While there were examples such as if you’re poor you should risk everything… Pro defended those with the simple fact of Ted knowing of the potential horrible outcomes for everyone. As for there could be a in case that isn’t named, it wasn’t named or even strongly implied to potentially exist.
The bomb analogy almost tipped it. It placed into my mind the hypothetical of a doomsday device which is ticking down; under those circumstances, it’s better to try anything than to do nothing. Leaving it with the low scale, doesn’t show me that the box is justified to use instead of just cutting a random wire on the bomb.
Pros case also could have been better. While I appreciate conciseness, it’s a gamble; even a couple more paragraphs would have clarified and therefore strengthened their case. Pro also should not have brought kindergarten into the debate, even while con embraced the ad hominems and got carried away with them.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
PRO never properly established what moral justification even is. He says Ted is guilty of gambling with the universe, but CON retorts that when talking about probability there will always be cases where a good outcome is more likely, if the current state of the world is worse than more than 50% of the purple box outcomes. PRO could have tried to present the framework that potential negative outcomes must be weighed as more morally significant, but he did not as far as I can tell. He instead argues about consent, but he never provides a moral framework to properly establish the value of consent when calculating moral justification. All PRO does is call Ted selfish and stupid, and says other people might not want him to open the box. CON counters that everyone is going to enjoy the potentially positive outcomes, and there is no reason to believe that Ted specifically is going to benefit, so you cannot really call him selfish.
"The bomb is set to go off after some time. Cutting a wire could speed it up possibly unimaginably so making what was perceived as the worse situation anybody could come in contact with, cutting one wire could make it even more worse. But cutting a wire could also rid the bomb going off altogether." This is the best argument CON could have made. If everyone is going to get blown to bits in nuclear annihalation, then Ted opening the purple box could be seen as morally justified, regardless of his inability to ask every single person for consent.
But I would probably have voted in favor of PRO if he provided a robust ethical framework and used that to argue his case, rather than simply appealing to our emotions as voters.
"But I would probably have voted in favor of PRO if he provided a robust ethical framework and used that to argue his case, rather than simply appealing to our emotions as voters."
Vote PRO if you have empathy and/or emotions.
Vote CON if you are a cold blooded psychopath who needs an ethical framework to decide right from wrong.
Good Game
A: What if the suffering being experienced is already infinite? Ex: an infinite amount of people in an infinite amount of suffering.
B: What if opening the box made that suffering infinitely worse in another way? Ex: an infinite amount of people in an infinite amount of suffering for an infinite amount of time.
A: What if the suffering being experienced is already infinite, in an infinite number of ways? Then could you use the box?
B: What if opening the box made the suffering infinite, in an infinite number of ways. And then somehow did that in multiple ways?
Think of 2 parallel planes (math term): Each plane can fit an infinite amount of infinitely long lines.
A: What if the suffering was infinite, in an infinite number of ways. And that was somehow in an infinite number of ways? Then could you use the box?
It never ends. LOL
This sounds like, "What if I add infinity by 1?"
Hell is not contingent on any specific description. I define hell as the worst thing possible, such that if it was possible to make it worse, it would automatically take on the meaning of that new state.
Responding to Benjamin's comment:
Well what if I took that hell, and I made it worse. Do you really think that there is a limit to human suffering?
What if an infinite people are in the worst hell logically possible. In that case, there is no outcome of the purple box that can result in a net negative.