Flaws are mostly objective

To start, my opponent’s argument is founded on a faulty syllogism. He writes: “P1: Purpose creates objective flaws. P2: Our lives are mostly based around purpose/ finding purpose P3: Flaws are mostly objective” Premise one is immediately false. Purpose does not create objective flaws. The sheer status as a “purpose” implies that someone established it. So it is not THE purpose, it is WHO’S purpose. There is no such thing as “THE purpose”…. my opponent seems to mistake the manufacturer’s purpose for the objective purpose, when that equation is unwarranted. The manufacturer’s purpose is no one else’s but the manufacturer individually. So, yes it is true, that pencil was created to write,…yet it cannot write. However, if I give it new purpose, not to write, but to be a desk decoration, why should I still call it flawed, when it meets MY criteria of what it should be doing? Purpose CLEARLY varies, and the manufacturer’s purpose is not superior to the individual’s purpose. If a thing does not fulfill its reason for existence, then it is flawed to no one else other than he who wanted it to fulfill that purpose. Example: Take the 1903 Wright Brother’s original airplane. Obviously it was created simply to fly, but it flew successfully only once. Today it rests in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington D. C on display (1). The plane is not fulfilling the manufacturer’s purpose,…but it clearly fulfills a new one, to be a historical relic for the evolution of aviation. How does one justify calling the plane “flawed” if it is not intended to fly, but to stay and be used as an exhibit? Purpose changes,…and to reiterate, there is no such thing as THE purpose but rather WHO’S purpose. I could easily call my iphone flawed because it does not make me breakfast. I could easily call this pen flawed because it doesn’t write my essay for me. YES, these are irrational expectations, but none of them are logically invalid. So, purpose is a wholly subjective factor, and thus gives variance to what is and is not perceived as a flaw. Refuting my opponent’s examples: “Now imagine the music player can do all the above except play CDs due to the machine malfunctioning in some way, this would be an objective flaw, not opinion. ” Here again my opponent makes the argumentative error of assuming THE purpose exists, when it is really WHO’S,. . in this case my opponent makes an appeal for the inventor’s/manufacturer’s purpose. Again, I will prove to you with a common example why the manufacturer’s/inventor’s purpose is not sperior. Example: Silly putty was invented during WWII while attempting to create a synthetic rubber substitute, 2 chemicals were mixed together FOR THIS PURPOSE, …but wound up creating what children now play with: silly putty (2). Is silly putty somehow inherently flawed because it does not qualify as a usable rubber substitute,…or would you agree that silly putty has a new popular purpose, and that is a toy/slime to keep kids preoccupied? Just because something was created to do X, does not mean I cannot give it a new purpose, Y. “Saying that "flaws" are mostly subjective would be like saying "the answers to problems" are mostly subjective. Answers to problems would be subjective if the equation being presented was X+X=, but once you filled the variableswith specifics like 2+2=,then the answer is objective. ” Yes, adding two things will get you an objective answer. 2 will always equal 2 no matter what because 2 is an objective figure…purpose is a 100% subjective figure, so it will change as perceptions and individuals vary. I honestly don’t see the relevance of this point beyond an attempt to compare something subjective to something objective. Liver Example This still does not prove that objective purposes exist. Biological purpose = purpose necessary for the human body to function (if we even accept that biology can have a purpose)…. but if one does not need the human body to function and would not mind dying then what is flawed about a dysfunctional liver? You are right in that it is an objective fact that the liver is not functioning according to what it is biologically supposed to do. You are wrong in calling this a flaw, when there may be some that WANT their liver’s to kill them and consider that a good a thing. Ecosystem Example My opponent again neglects to establish WHO’S purpose and resorts to some mystical decree as to what an ecosystem is SUPPOSED to do. What if I said that I don’t mind if species die, a flawed ecosystem is one that does not have turtles I have proved that purpose is certainly not objective, and neither are defects. A defect is only a defect if it violate an individual’s standards,…. but standards vary. So therefore what is considered a flaw is indubitably subjective. Vote CON. Sources 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.scribd.com...