Actual Fun

As agreed in the opening of the debate, this shall be my final argument. I am obliged to not post anything in round 5. I will give my rebuttals. "It isn't exactly an emotional card. It's a demonstration of the absurdities which result if morality is an illusion. I am pointing out that things that are called wrong by almost every human in the world wouldn't be considered wrong." Unless you are using mob mentality to form your beliefs, I fail to see how large numbers of people disagreeing with something make it absurd or illogical. This would actually fit in with it being an illusion. It just so happens that most such people have this illusion, because morality is a part of what it means to be human. It's how most human's brains are programmed. "disagree. It's not an illusion, it may come from less lofty sources, but it isn't an illusion. Take Nietzche's [Sic.] example in Human all too Human, the tribal big men created morality. It isn't from God or anything, but it isn't an illusion." I am assuming that by "less lofty sources" you mean to say "human brains", which would imply that it was an illusion, which would contradict your stance. If the brain is the source of morality, than it is quite verifiably an illusion. You specifically stated that "tribal big men" created morality. I am assuming that these "tribal big men" were humans, which would mean that morality was an invention of humans, and therefore an illusion. It is becoming evident that we might actually agree on this, since you seem to be arguing the same thing as me. "Not really. Morality can only apply to beings that can know the difference between right and wrong. Insects can't, people can. Therefore, people are the only real users of morality known to man." By "other users" I assume that you do not speak of the cold, dead physical matter of the natural universe, but minds. The only thing to acknowledge morality is minds, and therefore it is an illusion. "Kant 1. Moral rules cannot be hypothetical, because that impinges on moral autonomy, and the will of a rational being. 2. Therefore they must be categorical. 3. Consequences cannot determine morality, as they are not necessarily the product of a rational being. 4. Therefore inclinations determine morality. 5. Rules that lead to contradictions cannot exist. 6. Moral rules cannot lead to contradictions. 7. Therefore, we must use this principle: "Act in such a manner that thy maxim can be made a universal law of nature" in order to prevent contradictions." The argument above does not come to the conclusion, you might notice, that morality is more than an illusion. It comes to the conclusion that we should "act in such a manner" that it existed. This is an argument of why we should act like morality exists; one that I thoroughly agree with. It is not an argument that pertains to the topic at hand, however. It is outside the range of this debate. "Mill 1. Happiness is the only desirable thing (It's the only thing that can be desired, at least as a final end) 2. Therefore, morality must seek to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness." Once more, happiness is merely the term applied to a certain state of the chemicals in your head. Happiness is something that can only exist in the mind. Therefore, if morality is an element of happiness, than it is an illusion. "My litmus test is this "If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral"" Yes, but who determines what the "universal law of nature" is? The whole point of the question I put forth is to define that vague idea. What exactly IS the universal thing that connects these things via its rules? "I think you are misunderstanding me. If I say "Is it true that you go on to debate.org?" You would say it is not true, because there is no true or false. I can imagine you not going on debate.org, but you do go on nonetheless." You state above that you can "imagine" the false event. But can the false event occur in any way exempt imagination? No. Your imagination is within your head, and therefore the concept of "false" is an illusion. Oh yeah, and you quoted that section of my argument twice, you know. But thanks, it makes it look like I typed a really long body of text. "I provided logic." You provided logic not pertaining to this debate. "Sorry for the confusion. Okay, the average Bible-thumper says, "God hates gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research" so he doesn't support gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research. That's not logic, that's stupidity." Stupidity, is it? Well, why don't we use your litmus test… "If an action infringes on rights if it is made a universal law of nature for this situation more than it increases rights, it is immoral" The bible-thumper believes that gays, recreational sex, and stem cell research, are actions that infringe on the universal law of nature (they refer to it as god). It completely follows your litmus test. Therefore, if their morality is stupid, than your litmus test is stupid. To re-iterate… -There is no god or universal connection, and therefore morality cannot exist -Dead, physical matter does not have goal nor purpose, and all things in the world, even our brains are dead matter, therefore morality cannot exist. -Morality does not exist outside the imagination of the human brain, and therefore, by the definition of illusion, it is an illusion. My opponent seems to have misunderstood the resolution, and as a result, has not arguments as to why morality is not an illusion, but arguments as to why we should pretend it exists. I agree that we should pretend this exists, and therefore this has not been so much an argument as me trying in vain to explain to my opponent what the debate is about, and that he is preaching to the quire, so to speak. -Harlan