Actual Fun

Since I have already laid out the foundation of my argument in the opening round, I will go straight to rebuttals… "if morality is an illusion, where does that take us? For example, Hitler did nothing wrong, as there is no right or wrong... I can run over school children with my car, and hell, don't blame me, there's no such thing as right or wrong..." This is uncalled for. The above is not a logical argument, but an emotional one, with which you try to have an emotional appeal. This is a cheap card to play. You state that it would imply that the examples were immune to morality, but provided absolutely no logic as to why these things actually WERE immoral. You provided no reason why running over school children is immoral. And as far the Hitler thing goes, I suppose I had better explain how the topic of this debate fits in with my beliefs… The logical and rational part of my mind recognizes that there is no such thing as morality. I "know" this. I do NOT however "embrace" this idea, because it is impossible for me to do so, since it is a part of my human nature with which I do not wish to part. I think of Hitler's actions as immoral, because that is just the way my mind is programmed, but I am aware of the fact that nothing in this physical world matters. "You can't run society without morality. At its core, morality is the way we must act in order to survive, as an individual, and as a species. If morality is just some illusion, we cannot have an orderly society, we won't live." This is true. As humans, it would be best to pretend that morality exists. Heck, I do. Unfortunately for your case though, asserting that it is vital to HUMAN society and the HUMAN race, does not come to the conclusion that morality is more than an illusion. Something being necessary to a society does not mean it is not an illusion. You are diverging from the topic. In fact, my opponent only providing examples pertaining to humans, only goes to prove my point that morality is merely the product of the human mind. My opponent has only furthered the point that morality is an illusion. "Furthermore, morality is an abstract concept, that is, it isn't based off of perceptions, only logic. You might say "No! It's based off instincts, and a 'superficial perception,'" but, you are wrong. Morality is like math, our logic leads to its conclusions. For example, Kant used nothing but logic to show that his system of morality was the way to go. (He made one small fallacy, but nonetheless, he still based it off of logic.) J.S. Mill also used logic (also with a fallacy) to prove that his form of utilitarianism is correct. It's logic." This is an interesting assertion, but one with no accompanying evidence, and must therefore be disregarded. I am un-familiar with the people mentioned, and I am not inclined to look them up, because I need not to do my opponents research. The statement that morality is based off of logic is an empty one if you neglect to provide this logic. Mind you, giving the names of those who DO have the logic is no substitute. Unless you can actually show us the logic, this point does nothing to strengthen your argument. "Well, that man has one dumb moral system, and is probably really ignorant. I'm guessing that man may also tell you that man made global warming is real, because it was warm today, and that the sun orbits the earth (20% of adult Americans would agree with him) because you can see it move in the sky." But what makes his moral system wrong and yours right? Who gets to decide? Humans do…and it is therefore an illusion. Since you have chosen to ignore my point, and instead complain about the moral rules I chose (they were merely examples), I will use examples of moral beliefs from YOUR profile… On your profile, you are against both abortion and police profiling. What possible connection is there between these two things? "And also, with your opposites ideas, well think about this. All true and false are are opposites. Does that mean they are an illusion too?" Yes, it does mean that. They refer to pieces of information, which can only be stored in brains (including electric brains…I'm using the term loosely), and is therefore an illusion. There is no such thing as incorrect, if there is no thing to imagine something that is incorrect, in the physical world nothing is incorrect, because that refers to information, and there is no information, only results. Truth and false are merely descriptors to hypothetical, not actual, events. "Although a visiting alien is probably impossible (if one subscribes to the physics of Mr. Einstein)" Irrelevant. "the only irrational oppositions to certain ideas are from those monkeys that don't understand logic, and flinch at even the simplest modus tollens." What I was describing was morality. You imply that true morality is the result of logic, yet do not provide even the slightest hint to what this logic is. I am inclined to believe that you might not actually have a grasp of your alleged logic which you swear exists. "Only to those of us too ignorant to think about ethics." My opponent has now made the endlessly confusing assertion that people who are "too ignorant" to think about ethics, have the false illusion that morality does exist. Would you please elaborate on how people who don't think about ethics have the illusion it exists? "That would also mean that math, science, and modern philosophy also are meaningless. I won't make this a pointless debate about theism and atheism as well." Even if you believe there is very little, there are some reasons to agree with science, and what not. My point was that a debate based on blind faith is utterly without logic. "Ever read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason? If not do so, for he will surely change your mind." I have not. The above is not an argument, but a reference to someone else who DOES have an argument. This does not serve as evidence to his case. -Harlan