The concept of good and evil should ideally be abandoned in order to create a more just world

First of all, welcome to the website Bensen!I'm going to refer to you as he for ease in this first round, but if that is not your preferred pronoun please feel free to correct me.Onto the debate:Okay so first of all I'm going to restate the premise of this debate: The concept of good and evil should ideally be abandoned in order to create a more just world.That means that you are attempting to prove that the concepts of good and evil are not to the detriment of a 'just' world. I have erred in not defining just so I shall define it now.Just is defined as 'guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness' [1]In other words, you, my opponent, are attempting to prove that removing the concepts of good and evil would not help in creating a just world. The burden of proof is on me, as I am Pro, - you simply need to defuse my arguments and unwind my reasoning.Con states that there are only two types of morality in the universe. The first is perceived morality (he terms it 'epistemological morality) which differs between different societies as it is created by them, and actual morality - what is 'actually' right and wrong (which he terms ontological morality). He concentrates on ontological morality as epistemological morality is more likely to be used as a tool for 'evil governments to control their people.' That, of course, is something I stated in my original argument as being to the detriment of having a system of morality, and in this he agrees with me when it comes to 'epistemological' morality. Con states:'That is the sole purpose of ethics/moral, to help people interact with each others and with society. Therefore, the concept of good and evil should remain in society. (only the ontological concept.)'Here con implicitly completely accepts that 'epistemological' morality is harmful in the creation of a just world and agrees that it should be removed from society.However.Con's statement is irrelevant to the debate as helping others interact with each other and society does not in any way show that morality is creating an unjust world, and he is accepting that (what he terms) epistemological morality does indeed create more injustice via creating inequality. However, epistemological morality is the morality that is in practice in every society every day and it is not possible (as he later points out) to divine what exactly is 'ontologically' good and evil. He then goes on to state that 'just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean that we have to abandon it.' But Pro is not advocating to abandon it due to a lack of understanding, but because it creates injustice where a system of continually updated laws which all have an aim to create more justice or equality and fair-handedness would do a lot better in creating a more just world.So far, Con has failed to show that I am incorrect to state that the removal of the concepts of good and evil would create a more unjust world. In fact, he has supported me in that he has admitted that the removal of those concepts (or the removal of 'epistemological' morality) would be to the benefit of society.In the comments, Con defines what is 'ontologically' good as being more just, and what is 'ontologically' bad as being less just. But he does not prove that ontological morality actually exists. He states that there are a number of ancient societies which have developed similar morals independently from each other, which suggests that those morals are most probably right (by which I assume he means 'the most just.') But were not most ancient societies fans of slavery? Would Con affirm that because slavery was seen as right by most ancient civilisations that it must therefore be 'the most just?' Or will Con consider that it was similar conditions which led to a society that was far from just, yet produced similar morality codes because of the similar conditions they had to survive in, and most of the moral codes were meant to be practical, rather than just? And that similar moral codes of societies which lived in similar conditions is no indicator of the existence of a set of guidelines which prove that there is a definite 'right (most just action) and wrong (most injust action)? Pro's argument is that there is no ontological morality, as Con has been unable to point to the existence of any moral code which would provably have the most just result if followed. There is no divineable 'most just action,' which could be found and therefore no ontological morality. That leaves us with epistemological morality which Con has already conceded should be scrapped as it leaves too much power in the hands of 'evil governments' which can abuse morality to hurt certain groups of people, as I mentioned in my previous argument, and is therefore unjust.In the absence of the provable existence of an ontological morality and in the active harm done by an epistemological morality, we must settle for attempting to become increasingly just as a society. In doing so we cannot adopt a set of most just laws, but we can strive for it. Replacing old moral codes which allow for the abuse of minorities (preventing women from being educated etc) with laws which aim to be increasingly just. These laws would not be a moral code, but a legal one. They would not be controlled by society, but by philosophers whose job it would be to think about laws to make things increasingly more just. The laws would be constantly updated.Sources:[1] http://www.dictionary.com...;