BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[Tirmie]

ATTN: Knight

ATTN: Knight

I've got two problems with your post #4, and one with your post #5.

First is the odd way you seem to define "proof".

Proof is: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. - Merriam Webster

In other words.... for many, I have already "proved" my side of the argument and for some you may have "proved" your side of the debate, which is why I wouldn't be so silly as to continually ask you to "prove" your side of the debate.

Do you really define "proof" as whatever convinces any given person? Do you really think that an argument can be proof for one person, and not for another? Isn't such a relative standard odd for someone to take who believes in absolute truth?

Second is your statement of Zakath's position.

What set of circumstances could exist that could make murder or rape right???? That is after all what Zakath is ultimately arguing.

Not quite. He's "ultimately arguing" that there isn't such a thing as objective "rightness". If he tried to prove that rape or murder could be objectively right, he would be flatly contradicting the position he is defending. You can't require him to "prove you wrong" using methods that assume you are right.

His job is to argue against your basis for saying that murder and rape are absolutely wrong--which, from the definition of absolute morality you gave, means objectively wrong.

Last is your opening paragraph in post #5.

Zakath's entire post #5 is a request that I discuss the origin of absolute morality. If Zakath rejects absolute morality, why investigate its origin?

Because your definition of "absolute morality" is: "a standard of right and wrong that supercedes - or is greater than - man's standard of right and wrong."

How can you prove the existence of a standard of morality that is not based on man's ideas unless you say what it is based on?

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Knight is raising some ok questions but still has yet to argue for his own position. In formal debate you can not win unless you build your own case.

Others have rightly pointed out the problems with Knight merely "asserting" something and thinking that it is enough.

 

[Evangelion]

A moral relativist can argue that something is wrong on the basis of its outcome. And a moral absolutist has to agree that this is legitimate. For surely no moral absolutist would argue that the outcome of an action has no bearing on its moral significance!

Thus, Zakath can appeal to an "outcomes" based morality in order to show why he believes that a particular action is wrong or right. But at the same time, he can show that this same basis is relativistic - as indeed, it truly is.

Knight's burden of proof requires him to prove that an action may be considered moral or immoral regardless of its outcome! That is the point at which the Christian diverges from the atheist.

I would like to see Zakath elaborate on the relationship between an action and is moral consequences, and I would like to see Knight arguing that the outcome (although clearly relevant to the morality of an action) is insufficient to determine whether or not that action is truly moral. (Note the qualification - insufficient, not useless. This is how we close the atheist's escape route.)

Knight, IMHO, it's time to bring out Kant and appeal to his categorical imperative. :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Evangelion, thanks for the advice. I think the whole idea with the Battle Royale's is to avoid trotting out pre-existing arguments and pitting them against one another, basically replaying age old arguments in different words.

We want these Battle to be original and entertaining.

That being said.... I think if you look close enough you will find themes in both my and Zakath's posts that raise some of the points you are referring to. Once again, thanks for the advice and the participation!

 

[Projill]

*shrugs* I would just like to know when Knight starts making his case. I was in debate in high school and he would have lost by default by now.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Projill
*shrugs* I would just like to know when Knight starts making his case. I was in debate in high school and he would have lost by default by now.

Thanks Projill, good to hear from you again.

 

[Projill]

I'm glad to hear that you're happy to hear from me. I'm really busy these days...that's why I wanted to know when you will be building your case. Seriously, I'm curious. I've heard this debate before in a formal setting with formal debate rules...so I know you can build something resembling a case.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Projill
I'm glad to hear that you're happy to hear from me. I'm really busy these days...that's why I wanted to know when you will be building your case. Seriously, I'm curious. I've heard this debate before in a formal setting with formal debate rules...so I know you can build something resembling a case.

Sometimes the best part of the debate is proving the other side has a contradictory position.....

Sort of like our little exchange here Projill.

 

[Zakath]

Attacking the enemy vigorously is common tactic to hide a weak defense. Particularly when your own position is indefensible...

 

[kmarcus]

Question:

I've never been involved in formal debate. Is Knight the only one who must prove his case, or does Zakath need to prove that absolute morality does not exist?

Thanks
kmarcus

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Zakath needs to prove that morality is relative and Knight needs to prove the morality is absolute.

Ev, "The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals' eh? I doubt it would be really understood here nor given the weight it deserves although I think Kant could really add something to the argument.

Pilgrim

 

[Zakath]

Kmarcus,

In case you couldn't tell, this is not a formal debate.

But to answer your question about a formal debate setting, generally the affirmative side in a debate presents first and is expected to attempt to prove their affirmative statement.

The negative side then has two options. They may either try to attack the affirmative side's presentation, data, logic, etc. or they can attempt to prove that the affirmative side is wrong by constructing a case which logically excludes them. The latter path is seldom attempted since it's likely to be considered dragging the debate off topic and the moderator will intervene.

For example, if this were a formal debate, Knight would have started first and attempted to build a case to support the existence of absolute morality. I would have attempted to take his case apart.

As you may have noticed, what has happened in this particular debate is that Knight has not attempted to prove the affirmative case and is spending most of his time trying to discredit the negative side, hoping to win by default...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath states...

As you may have noticed, what has happened in this particular debate is that Knight has not attempted to prove the affirmative case and is spending most of his time trying to discredit the negative side, hoping to win by default...

Is Zakath hoping that people are not actually reading the debate?

 

[kmarcus]

Actually, Zakath, what I have noticed is that you have a knack for ducking the question. And if this is not a formal debate, then quit attempting to convince everyone that Knight alone has the burden of proof. Good Luck.

kmarcus

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by kmarcus
Actually, Zakath, what I have noticed is that you have a knack for ducking the question...

Which question is that, kmarcus?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
Zakath states...Is Zakath hoping that people are not actually reading the debate?

No, he is hoping that Knight is finally willing to present his standard of absolute morality... I know it took Moses forty days and nights, but I was hoping you could do it in a shorter period, what with modern technology and all...

 

[kmarcus]

Zakath: Knight has asked:

"A 40 year old man watches a 9 year old girl walk past his house everyday on her
way home from school. On one day, the man decides to grab her off the sidewalk
against her will. She struggles but the man is much stronger and successfully pulls
her into his house. The man holds his hand over the girls mouth to prevent her
from screaming. The man drags the girl into his basement where he proceeds to
violently rape her several times. When done, the man decides it would be best to
place a pillow over the girls mouth and nose and hold it there until she eventually
suffocated. When the man felt the girl no longer breathing he placed her body in
the trunk of his car and drove to a remote location where he dumped the girl's
body.

Absolutely wrong or not?"

Don't feel as though you need to answer me, though. I am just interested to see your reply to Knight's question.

kmarcus

 

[Zakath]

...Absolutely wrong or not?"

Kmarcus,

As I've said in one of my previous replies on these types of questions: the question is moot for a moral relativist.

If you're a Christian, it is roughly analogous to me asking you the following: "Which god should you obey, Vishnu or Odin?"

Since your theology doesn't likely acknowledge the existence of either one as a real deity, the question is moot...

Did you even read my reply to Knight?

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Zakath
As I've said in one of my previous replies on these types of questions: the question is moot for a moral relativist.

If you're a Christian, it is roughly analogous to me asking you the following: "Which god should you obey, Vishnu or Odin?"

Since your theology doesn't likely acknowledge the existence of either one as a real deity, the question is moot...

That question isn't moot! The Christian answers: "Neither, I only worship the God of the Bible!"

Likewise Knight's question of you is not moot, if you are a relativist you should simply answer "no, the specific action is NOT absolutely wrong".

Why don't you simply answer the question Zakath?

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
That question isn't moot! The Christian answers: "Neither, I only worship the God of the Bible!"

Likewise Knight's question of you is not moot, if you are a relativist you should simply answer "no, the specific action is NOT absolutely wrong".

Why don't you simply answer the question Zakath?

The action is wrong. Whether or not it is absolutely wrong has no bearing on the severity of the wrong. It is wrong. It is very wrong. Few, relativist or absolutist, would disagree, I think. Absoluteness does not deal with severity, it deals with source. If it is absolute, there needs to be a source for that absolute that, as Knight suggests, supercedes human standards and experience. That source may or may not exist. However, lacking proof of that source, one cannot knowingly declare that the absolute exists. One can only declare their belief that the absolute exists.