Resolved: It is more likely than not, that morality does not exist.

Contention 1: Morality often contradicts itself To start this point, I would like to talk about a scene from one of my favorite movies, Inglorious Basterds. In this scene, a German officer is with his troops looking for Jewish runaways that he believes to be hiding in a French household. While talking to the head of the house, they draw into a conversation where the German Officer feels the need to justify Hitler"s movement. In this brilliant scene, he uses an example about the human attitude to the difference of rats and squirrels. In the scene, the Frenchman agrees that the attitude towards rats is worse, because rats were responsible for help in spreading the bubonic plague. The German officer counters this by pointing out that squirrels can equally carry the plague. The conversation concluded with German officer and the Frenchman agreeing that the attitude difference came down to appearance of the animal, rather than it"s specific behavior. The point of all this is, many moral principles seem to base a lot of similar judgments as with the human attitude with killing rat"s vs squirrels. Many people believe that killing is ultimately wrong; however why does this logic only applied to killing other humans? Humans set mouse traps in there house every day, smash house spiders, or go hunting for sport? There are many justifications that are used, that are not generally used equally when killing a living being of another species. It is my understanding that the concept of morality is really all built in the psyche. The emotions we feel when another human is killed are more imminent in our own species then they are in other species. However the contradiction is pretty telling when questioning the act of killing itself being a violation of morality. Contention 2: Learned behavior, and variables. What makes a moral principle a moral principal? Where is the guideline? Some may say it is created by God. Aside from a theistic outlook, most "moral guidelines" are learned behaviors. Parents teach their children what is "right and wrong". In fact, everything we do is a result from learned behaviors brought to us by parents, and society. If we took out the variable of learned behaviors, a child would grow up instinctually, almost primitive as if it were an animal. Instinct driven, with the sole intention of survival. In such a situation, a human being might be just as willing to kill another human being for food. What we would or could do outside the context of an organized and functioning society is a great way to analyze and look at the foundation of moral principles. Justifications we make that excuse moral principles, are the single variable that makes me and many other question moral principles. If a rapist were found, tortured, and killed, many individuals would say that the action was morally permissible. Their negative feelings toward another individual and his action can entirely dismiss an indefinite act of morality. But if we excuse the action because of the variable of Justice, we draw a really slippery line in determining what is allowable VS what isn"t. In American culture, rape has been taught to be one of the worst offenses to moral violation; some even feel it is worse than murder. Some individuals even feel pleasure from watching such torture, feeling the persons actions justify the glee in watching what would normally be classified as an evil act. I am going to conclude here, and keep this simple and short. Morality is hard to define, and has loop holes and slippery lines that are used to justify its existence. It is completely more likely that it doesn"t exist. I believe that morality is a psychological connection of human emotions, but the belief does work for a functioning society of human survival.