Instigator / Con

"Cause no pain" - a good moral system?


The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Contender / Pro

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Questions on the topic, send a message.

Round 1
"No Pain" is a good moral system, is it not?

I take the position, it is not. The opposing side stands on the ground that it is.

This is a slam dunk. I barely have to argue anything.

"No Pain" is good. The opposing side agrees with that.

A person that experiences "no pain" is good. In spite of it taking "pain" by a given circumstance in order for there to be "no pain".

I just demonstrated the self inflicted wound in the opposing side's stance. Having "no pain" which is the absence of pain is good but given a situation that involved pain just conflicts the whole idea of "no pain" is good as good came out of such situation.

This is regardless of how you slice it or define it.
You can simply have no pain by having no person existing to experience it. 
That's good right.

But the law, the people do not encourage or promote life not to exist. All the policies and regulations are in place for the " good " of a society. 
In order for there to be a society, it has to exist , that's number one. A dead society, what good would be required for the dead? It doesn't apply.

"No Pain" is not good. That is because alone, it has an incomplete context.
An example with this illustration of a heinous genie and a wish. Someone suffering from pain and agony you wish there to be no pain.
That's good in your mind. But what is also in your mind is a healthy living person with no pain is the basis why good is present in tandem with no pain.
But when you express "no pain" alone to the genie, you express "no pain " and that's "good", you'll find that it's actually bad. That's because the genie cut the life and existence of that someone out altogether.

The absence of pain is not good because alone, you can have nothing else existing to make no pain possible, nothing existing to express the goodness of that.
You have the expression of light with the existence of darkness. You don't have the goodness expressed of no pain without the existence of the sentient and or capacity for it.

Point blank period.
Your arguments are all wrong. "Causing no pain" is good. In fact, the closer one gets to "causing no pain", the better it is.

Pain is the worst thing in the world, worse than being dead.
Round 2
Being that the opposing side again is not challenging my points again in this topic, I will challenge the following from the opposing side.

"In fact, the closer one gets to "causing no pain", the better it is."

What does this mean "the closer one gets"?

Closer by doing what? Are you doing it while alive?

Are you doing by going towards death to eliminate pain or the opposite way?

"Pain is the worst thing in the world, worse than being dead."

This just proved my point . Calling my point wrong is calling this point from the opposing side wrong. This just backed up my point. Saying something is the worst thing in the world applies context like I said. Saying "in the world" is comparing to not only what exists as I said and how pain is represented via what is expressed in existence , you guage other elements existing in that world in comparison.

So it's not "no pain " equals good. It's "no pain " plus the comparable/desirable good outcome equals good.

Example: If we go by the no pain only rule, we can get an unwanted result that is not good which negates the standard of just the "no pain" criteria in turn giving us a false or pseudo good;not truly good. Again this was demonstrated with the genie example.

So no pain being possibly dead as compared to no pain and alive is the difference. So we can't just say simply no pain and that's what makes something good by itself.


So no pain being possibly dead as compared to no pain and alive is the difference. So we can't just say simply no pain and that's what makes something good by itself.


So no pain being possibly dead as compared to no pain and alive is the difference. So we can't just say simply no pain and that's what makes something good by itself.

"Your arguments are all wrong."

This is like a trend with the opposing side now whereas this individual is falling back on not arguing again for simply a lack of critical reasoning or an indirect way of saying "I concede".

Either way, that's what it is.

"worse than being dead."

Another comparison to where it is not known other than us assuming non existence of pain which concedes to my point of existence to make an expression of a quality. You only take an idea that it's worse than non existence because it has to exist for it to be experienced.

It has to exist for it to be compared and contrasted and represented in expressive context. So an existence is the context to setup your comparisons. When you say worse than death , now you're saying no pain plus, plus, plus existing, not being dead but alive with no pain is good.

Now can we measurably compare or compare at all an existing experience to one we know nothing about such as a non experience?

It is not computable. It is however with other experiences. It's like we can't calculate letters with numbers but we can numbers with numbers see.

So we can leave the death facet out of this. By saying pain is worse than death, you're indirectly acknowledging from an experience side of things to be able to make that statement by just trying to scale it even though it's against something out of range or off the scale anyway.

From the experience side of it, that is context plus causing no pain equals whatever it is.

Which validates no to the topic, invalidating a yes to it.

Your arguments are all wrong.

My arguments are all right and 100% true.

As I said, pain is worse than death.

Life in pain is worse than death.

So naturally, the closer we get to "cause no pain", the better.

For example, I already decided not to have children.

Why would I create children in such a horrible world and possibly place them in worst position they can possobly be in?

The moral system I am defending is obviously the best possible system, supported by scientific accuracy of how I value things.

I hate pain the most, so I dont see why I would enable someone else to be in pain.
Round 3
Round 4
There is not much more to progress in this debate. If there was a debate that can afford a forfeited round, this is it.

The opponent is simply not responding to my points.
The opponent just continues in the fallacy conveying " you're wrong, I'm right".

The opposing side is so dismissive, the opponent can't even see or acknowledge the agreement.

An example of this is the opponent saying " life in pain is worse than death".

The opponent is not realizing or just ignoring my text.

Again, you do that when you have no refutation or can't admit you're wrong.
You hold a pretense and debate in a disingenuous fashion.

The funny thing is, the individual is doing the very thing I mentioned in the interview. The interview setup by this same one. This same individual doing the same very thing I mentioned.

The opponent said " life in pain is worse than death". The opponent is making my point. Life + pain. Not just pain. But the opponent's moral system is just pain. The opposing side has abandoned the original position of the topic to join mine.

I believe the problem  is the opposing side is using words loosely not being attentive to word selection.

Why create children in a horrible world? I guess the opposing side is trying to argue no existence, no pain. This is inconsistent with the moral system because the statement made " life in pain" which would be life + pain. No existence, no life , no good. None of these would exist. Again, a moral system we're talking about equals good, A person that doesn't exist experiences neither good or a moral system. You've thrown out the whole point. Life + no pain is good. I know the opposing side won't respond because I'm saying fact. It's reality that can't be refuted.

Just "no pain" is insufficient. The opposing side only knows what bad is or what's worse is through life + pain. It's with context + pain. You have to have context, context, context.

I have to stress that. A medical procedure may be painful. That's a context. But the PAINFUL procedure saved a person's life in the goodness of doing right. The opponent is arguing in a shallow manner but edging the way to a more detailed substantial argument by saying " life in pain".
I dont see your point.

Sure, we cause pain to save life.

Doesnt mean that its the right choice, or that its good to force someone to live in pain.