A World Without Lies

I am honored that my opponent finds my debate structure appealing. Incidentally, I agree with all of the definitions earlier submitted by Pro. Rebuttal Concerning The Employment Situation Section 1 “If person A cannot do the job as well as person B, my opponent seems to find fault with person B getting the job. Never does Con explain why A deserves the job more than B. ” I must admit I am unsure of the process that could have led my opponent to such an erroneous and distorted view of my argument. The argument was not that it was wrong for B to be hired but that in the event that another job was open that A is unlikely to gain while B has no barrier to employment, it is “better” for A to be hired for the first job and B to be hired for the second. It is, at base, simple logic; in Option 1, one job is satisfied while the other position is unfilled, but in Option 2 two, both positions are satisfied. Put simply, two jobs are greater than one (2>1), affirming that the lie is more (to use my opponent’s words) efficient. Efficiency, the state of working in a well-organized matter, improves production as a general rule, therefore I will make the assertion that a society that is more efficient than another benefits the human race as a whole and is therefore good/morally correct. Resultantly, this part of my argument remains standing rather soundly. Section 2 “They seem to insinuate that mercy, or sympathy is required for their utopia to function. ” Again, this statement is a grotesque misinterpretation of the argument I made. Any and all who read the argument carefully would have noticed that, quite on purpose, the word may was located in the following quote “In world with lies, the employer may give the job to (A) rather than (B) in a show of pity for (A), choosing (A) as “the best man for the job” even though most agree (B) is the true better choice. ” This means that in a society incorporating lies, there is a possibility that the aforementioned and defined Option Two will be selected, something that, as explained before, cannot happen in the world without lies. In other words, in a society without lies (in reference to the 2>1 inequality discussed in Section 1) produces one filled job while the lie society produces one job also, but with a chance to fill two jobs instead. Therefore the “utopia”, as my opponent so sardonically calls it, does not necessarily require sympathy to operate, but simply “leaves room” for sympathy, which then may be able to improve the society. In other words, this “utopia” functions at worst the same as a lie-free society and, at best, more efficiently (therefore it is assumed as by the earlier standard to be good/morally correct). Section Three “My opponent attempts to make this out to be Utilitarianism but it sure as hell is not Utilitarianism to prevent the people most capable of a doing a job to not do it. ” While this sentence is grammatically confusing, I am going to assume that it means something like the following; “My opponent attempts to say that the weak leading the strong is utilitarianism, however it is obviously not utilitarianism to prevent the most capable person from doing a job. ” If this assumed interpretation of the argument my opponent intended to make is wrong, I invite my opponent to skip over Section Three, as it is relevant only if my interpretation was correct. Consequently, I am afraid that if my assumption is correct, my opponent has again failed to grasp the argument. Rather than copying the whole of ‘Argument One: The Employment Situation’, I will reintroduce only the most key sentence and invite my opponent to read the argument again, perhaps more carefully. “(A) Is jobless, and with his decreased capacity for work is less likely to be hired to a different position. ” Those who read Argument One closely may recognize this sentence is located under Option 1 under “In summary”. Having restated this sentence, I will assume here onward that my opponent has reread the rest of Argument One. Taken in this full context, the flaw in my opponent’s argument becomes staggeringly clear; the argument does not suggest that the best person is necessarily denied a job. The fact that A is said to be less likely to receive another position, coupled with the complementary fact that B is more likely to receive the position A is unlikely to get. In other words, the filling of the first contested position by A forces B into a job that A could not satisfy with A’s inherent deficiencies. Essentially, this indicates that in Option 2, the more highly skilled workers are guided to positions that require skills to carry out with any effect. This would suggest that Option 2 actually helps fill positions more effectively than Option 1, providing even more support for a world with lies (Option 2) as opposed to the world without (Option 1). Unless I grossly misunderstand the concept of utilitarianism, Option 2 is by definition extremely utilitarian. As my opponent so wisely asks, “Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the majority of humanity to put the best runner on the tracks, the sharpest statisticians calculating risks and analyzing progress and the most efficient nurses on duty to care for the sick? ” I would say yes, the aforementioned is highly beneficial to society, and that is precisely what can be caused by Option 2, forcing the prodigies from working at, for instance, Burger Kings to (also for example) being doctors in hospitals. This is more efficient than the lieless world of Option 1 and is therefore considered more "good" than the lieless world. Rebuttal Concerning The Human Selection Issue "My opponent seems to be appealing to morality and emotions during this entire argument. " Well then. While to my opponent it is apparent that Argument Two was nothing more than an appeal to emotions and morality (I am unsure what appealing to morality is supposed to entail or why it would be incorrect, considering the entirety of the debate is whether or not a world without lies is morally correct or not), Argument Two was never intended to be emotional. Argument Two only stated that in the society without lies, the weak would be left to die. I then went on to state that this is false utilitarianism. Rather than reiterating the rebuttals for Argument One, I will simply make the assertion that, as the presence of the 'weak' that still work allows Option Two to take place, extermination of these 'weak' is rather inefficient. On the subject of the weak that no longer are able to work, the fact remains that those who are unable to work still generally have the ability to impart wisdom to future generations, possibly increasing efficiency in the future. Again, as this efficiency benefits humankind, it is considered more "good" than the lieless world. It is also interesting to note that it was not until Argument Two that I mentioned utilitarianism, which my opponent mistakenly categorized under and in context to Argument One. Rebuttal Concerning Social Impacts "This is simply not required in a world without lies because everyone will have the same viewpoint; the true one. " I will not waste much time on this "rebuttal", as it has no effect unless it can be shown that there can possibly be only one "true" viewpoint. I will be impressed if my opponent can show how an opinion (by his "viewpoint" definition) can be "true" or "false". Concluding this argument, three things are apparent: 1. My opponent failed to actually address my arguments. 2. As a direct result, my opponent failed to effectively rebut any of my arguments. 3. My opponent dedicated an incredibly scant amount of time making any affirmations of the moral superiority of a world without lies over a world with lies, therefore providing little to no proof that a lieless world is morally correct/good.