Morality > Nature

I'm looking forward to a great debate!Introduction The Pro seems to be making three related claims in his opening argument. First, from the title, he claims that morality is greater than nature. Second, from this superior position, morality dictates nature to be immoral. Finally, humans as the “only civilized species” ought to try and fix it. Since the last two claims stem from the first claim, I will start by focusing on this argument in greater detail. Upon initial observation, it may seem that everything the Pro argues is true. The nature is full of immorality: survival of the fitness; kill or be killed. As humans, we obviously know that our world is positively different: we are able to think and rationalize; we work together to form governments, cultures, and societies; arguably, we are the only species that can even recognize or determine the difference between right and wrong. If we look closer, however, we can see a more complex picture. Symbiotic, mutual relationships exist all over the place in nature. Some animals will act in ways we humans consider to be morally correct such as protecting other creatures from harm. Many humans, meanwhile, continually act in ways we consider to be morally incorrect. As the only “civilized species” we’ve introduced uniquely human, uniquely immoral, concepts such as war, murder, rape, and other atrocities. My point is simple: determining whether morality is greater than nature is going to be more complex than just a simple observation. I’m going to start with a look at what exactly “morality > nature” means from the standpoint of the debate, and philosophy; and then proceed with my arguments against the Pro’s claims. A Look At “Morality > Nature” There’s two ways to look at this statement. First, from a traditional debate standpoint, this is a claim that the Pro has a certain burden to uphold in order to win. Typically, this sort of claim is opposing the status quo: purposing a change in action or thinking from what is considered “accepted” or “normal”. Therefore, my arguments against this claim will incorporate the Pro’s burden. Second, we can look at this statement from a philosophical standpoint, which I intended to focus on for the rest of this section. “Morality is greater than nature” is a statement comparing two things with a preference for one thing over the other. A philosophical madlib for this kind of statement would be something like, “A is greater than B”. Now, before we can begin to determine whether A is actually greater than B, a couple of conditions must be satisfied. For one, A & B must actually be two separate things, otherwise the comparison can’t logically occur. For example, to say “a car is better than an automobile” would be illogical since, unless you’re talking about different types of cars/automobiles, “car” and “automobile” simply refer to the same object. As well, A & B ought to be mutually independent of each other. That is to say, we encounter problems if A can only exist because of B or vice versa. To say that, “a car is better than an engine” would be rather illogical because a car (by it’s nature of being a mode of transportation) can’t exist without an engine. Therefore, that kind of statement - in trying to claim that A is better than a part of itself, because of that part - will just lead us around in some kind of quasi-vicious circle of reasoning. Are Morality And Nature Mutually Independent? To simplify my discussion from the previous section, consider this: in order for the Pro to even to begin to satisfy his burden of proof for “morality > nature”, this claim must meet the conditions I describe above. Otherwise, such a claim would be impossible to argue. Common knowledge tells us that his claim meets the first condition: morality is a distinct thing from nature. However, the second condition is still up in the air: are morality and nature mutually independent? To understand the relationship between morality and nature, we can start with things that can influence our understanding of right and wrong. In philosophy, two major camps exist: moral realism and moral anti-realism. In general, moral realism argues that claims about right and wrong are influenced on objective moral properties: facts and qualities that actually exist in the real world (including nature) [1]. Moral anti-realism, on the other hand, argues that such claims are influenced by subjective moral properties: qualities that only exist in the human mind[2]. Why are these two ideas important? They can help us determine whether or not morality and nature are mutually independent: if morality is influenced by objective moral properties found in nature, then it is partly dependent on nature. If morality is influenced by subjective moral properties, then the Pro has a stronger claim that morality is independent of nature. Arguments Against The Pro Finally, I will conclude with my arguments against the Pro’s three claims. First, given my discussion about “morality > nature” above, we must see that it is impossible to even begin to consider this claim because it’s unlikely you can conclude morality and nature are mutually independent. For one, 56.4% of philosophers[3] support moral realist arguments, versus only 27.7% for moral anti-realist arguments. More importantly, no debate like this can possibly determine whether morality is objectively or subjectively based. The problem with moral realism vs. anti-realism claims is that no method of proof exists yet (if ever). Philosophers continue to struggle with the relationship between the objective and subjective for both morality and nature. Are moral properties real? Are atoms just a part of some big computer simulation? Philosophers have arguments and theories (many commonly accepted), but no complete way to rule on these matters anymore than scientists can rule on the existence of a divine presence. The Pro can’t even begin to argue for this claim without knowing whether morality is objectively or subjectively based. If morality is based on objective moral properties found in nature, then nature itself influences what morality is. This creates a paradox for the pro’s other two claims: how can nature be immoral when it influences what is and isn’t moral? Why does it matter than humans are the “only civilized species” when morality shapes civility, and nature shapes morality? What if morality is based on the human mind? Here too, the Pro runs into issues because a subjective morality will never provide consistent descriptive and normative claims about right and wrong. In other words, our morals become slippery. What’s moral and the right to do for one person is immoral and wrong to do for another. In this case, morality’s entire existence is simply based on human preference. Nature might be immoral to some “civilized” cultures, but what about the tribes that believe it’s right to hunt and survive in the same way as animals? Which notion of “right and wrong” should we use to “fix” nature? Which is the correct moral theory? To summarize, my arguments are two fold: first, the Pro can’t even begin to claim that morality is greater than nature unless we can determine that morality and nature are mutually independent. Second, I argue that it’s impossible to determine since we can’t logically conclude whether morality is influenced by objective properties found in nature, or by subjective properties found in the human mind. Finally, both options present challenges to the Pro’s final two claims. We can’t “fix” and “immoral” nature if our notion of morality is either based on properties found in that nature or based on human perception that will differ on what is “right and wrong” in regards to nature. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...