BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[marcelpo]

KNIGHT:>>Now Zakath has really gone off the deep end. The debate is "Is there such a thing as absolute morality?" I have demonstrated that absolute morality must exist since we can point to absolute moral's such as rape, murder, kidnapping that by definition can never be "right".<<

Unfortuantely, KNIGHT left out a VERY important step in his arguement. He still needs to prove that murder as he defines it actually exists. Using his definition of "wrongfull killing" he then has to prove that BOTH terms can be objectively established. I know "killing" can be established by evidence, but unfortunately for KNIGHT he has yet to prove that "wrong" or "wrongfull" can ALSO established. If there is NO WAY to determine if a killing is "right" or "wrong" then murder as he defines it is a useless word since we have no way of knowing when a killing actually qualifies as murder.

Is murder (ie a wrongfull killing) wrong? Yes. In the same way that an intelligent idea is intelligent, a red bal is red, classical music is classic and a nice book is nice. Does this add any information to the killing? No. A nice book is nice, but what qualifies as a nice book? Since the term "nice" is subjective to the person you are asking, what one person would say is a nice book another person would describe as a boring book. It doesn't add information about the BOOK, it only adds information about someone's OPINION of the book. Does this prove that "nice books" are ABSOLUTELY nice?

Since we defined "absolutely" as something OUTSIDE human experience, the awnser most definitely is "no". I can imagine a person who HATES reading and as such would describe NO book as "nice". For that person, a "nice book" doesn't exist. But if the existence of "nice books" is ABSOLUTE then they would ALSO exist for that person. Since they do NOT this proves that "nice books" do not exist ABSOLUTELY, but only RELATIVELY.

I can imagine a person who would find that EVERY action is "right". For that person, "murder" (ie wrongfull killing) doesn't exist since there is NO killing possible that would lead to being labled as "murder". Now, if murder doesn't exist FOR A SINGLE POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING, how can "murder" be ABSOLUTELY wrong? It can't be, because it would lead to a contradiction with our potentially possible human being. Thus, we have proven that "absolutely wrong murder" doesn't exist.

Game over, please insert coin.

 

[kmarcus]

Nice try, Zakath. Looks like we won't get an answer. A true moral relativist would simply say "no, the actions of this man are not absolutely wrong." I know....sounds horrible, doesn't it?

kmarcus

 

[cirisme]

When is this thing going to be done with? No offense, but it is really boring! Just how many times is Knight gonna hafta whip tha' boy? :crackup: :crackup:

 

[Valmoon]

Posted by Kmarcus:

"Nice try, Zakath. Looks like we won't get an answer. A true moral relativist would simply say "no, the actions of this man are not absolutely wrong." I know....sounds horrible, doesn't it?"

Not really. Since there is no such thing as absolute morals saying something is wrong is the best any of us can do.

Yeah Knight is really abusing Zak. *snicker* And the Cubs are division contenders too.

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Valmoon
Posted by Kmarcus:

"Nice try, Zakath. Looks like we won't get an answer. A true moral relativist would simply say "no, the actions of this man are not absolutely wrong." I know....sounds horrible, doesn't it?"

Not really. Since there is no such thing as absolute morals saying something is wrong is the best any of us can do.

Yeah Knight is really abusing Zak. *snicker* And the Cubs are division contenders too.

Huh??? Zakath (as a moral relativist) should answer "no - the specific action is not absolutely wrong", after all he does not believe in absolute morality! He could even add "no - the specific action is not absolutely wrong, yet only wrong relative to me". But he doesn't, why????

There is no logical reason form him not to answer that way.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
Huh??? Zakath (as a moral relativist) should answer "no - the specific action is not absolutely wrong", after all he does not believe in absolute morality! He could even add "no - the specific action is not absolutely wrong, yet only wrong relative to me". But he doesn't, why????

Because to answer either way would indicate at least a token acknkowledgement of "absolute" morality. That' s why it is so vitally important for Knight to push this issue and equally important that I not answer the question as stated.

Capisce?

 

[Freak]

Poor Zakath...

Poor Zakath...

It's time to announce the Champion-Knight!

Zakath has been beaten horribly by a believer in the Lord Jesus.

I know it's driving him crazy....:shocked:

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Again it seems that people are not voting based on effective or logical consturction of arguments but rather they are simply proclaiming victory for whatever view point they already agreed with.

 

[muldoon]

I can't believe what I just read. I was rooting for Zakath but now I am wishing they had chosen a different fighter.

 

[Valmoon]

To be honest I wish Zakath hadnt led the debate slightly astray with his last post.

Let's be clear. Knight is asking if the actions shown in his example are wrong if NO other extenuating circumstances apply. If for no better reason the perpertrator chooses to murder and rape a little girl just like he decides to choose which flavor of ice cream he will have at DQ.

Remember Zakath, Knight only has to show that one action or behavior is absolutely wrong to win. So given his example and no extenuating circumstances apply is such an action absolutely wrong? Is the act of forcing yourself sexually on an unwilling little girl just because one feels like it absolutely wrong?

You chose to engage in Knights line of questioning so maybe a follow up is in order. This in now way has to do with "proving" moral absolutes but I'm a little hazy on where you stand after your last post.

 

[Eireann]

I have demonstrated that absolute morality must exist since we can point to absolute moral's such as rape, murder, kidnapping that by definition can never be "right".

No, you have contended that absolute morality must exist because you have declared that rape, murder and kidnapping are absolute morals. Your declaration that they are absolute falls way short of actually demonstrating how or why they are absolute. You've established a criteria for absolute, at least for the purposes of the extant debate. Now you need to apply them to your supposed absolute morals. If murder, rape and kidnapping are absolute morals, then they adhere to a standard that supercedes human standards, interpretations, and experience. Just what is that standard? Can you show it exists? Can you prove it exists? Do you have an observable, measurable and testable (i.e. empirical) point of reference to establish that such a superceding standard exists? Remember, "I believe in God and the Bible" won't cut it. I'm from Missouri -- show me!

 

[Vitamin J]

I admit... I have a bias towards Knights side of this debate. But I have read arguments like this before and I cannot believe anyone could honestly think Zakath has not lost this one.

Round 8 was worse than round 2 for Zakath.

In my opinion.

 

[kmarcus]

I agree, Vitamin J. Zakath has been on the ropes since the early going, and is, at this point, out on his feet.

 

[novice]

What an incredibly brilliant strategy by Zakath!!!!!

Zakath creates an argument so stupid that all the onlookers will think the fight is rigged! It's brilliant I tell you, brilliant!!!!!

 

[Eireann]

Firstly Zakath has still avoided the question of the specific example as originally stated (without his addition), more on that later. But more importantly.... what will Zakath have to argue next??? Argue that the actions of the terrorists that forced poor Ted into committing this awful crime were not ABSOLUTEY WRONG??????? I suppose if someone asked Zakath if the actions of the terrorists in his hypothetical scenario were absolutely wrong for what they did Zakath would be forced to invent an even wackier scenario in which aliens from the planet "Htakaz" performed mind control upon the terrorists which in turn forced Ted to rape the little girl and therefore the actions of the terrorists were not absolutely wrong.

Knight asked Zak for a scenario in which murder and rape might not be absolutely wrong. He didn't say the scenario had to be likely, only that it had to be possible. Is the scenario that Zakath put up an impossible scenario? By Knight's own words, he implies that if the scenario were true, then the absolute wrong is passed upon the terrorist. He defends himself immediately by ridiculing the scenario, but it remains that the scenario is possible, however unlikely it may be. So Knight wants to move the question to the absoluteness of the terrorist's wrong. Well, there's no need, because Knight has already doomed his argument. He has conceded that Ted's murder and rape of the girl were not the absolutely wrong act, but the acts of the terrorist were the absolutely wrong act. By so doing, he admits that at least in this one case, murder and rape are not absolutely wrong. Knight's argument dies right then and there. The debate is over. Knight loses by his own hand.

Maybe not? Maybe not?????? Maybe not????? In other words, MAYBE YES!!!! [voice of Harry Caray]Cubs win, Cubs win!!!![/voice of Harry Caray]

"Maybe not" and "maybe so" are both relativist stances. This supports your side how? "Is so" is the absolutists stance. I didn't see that anywhere in the post.

The actions of Ted raping the young girl were not absolutely wrong in Zakath's eyes - ONLY- when he added his crazy hypothetical about Terrorists forcing Ted to rape the girl or they would blow up New York City.

You asked for a scenario, and you got one. Now you want to complain about it? Sure it sounds crazy. Sure it sounds unlikely. But after 9/11, it certainly isn't impossible, is it? It's possible, which is what you asked for. You wanted it, now deal with it. How poor a loser are you?

But if Ted had no ulterior motive and just kidnapped, raped and murdered the young girl for nothing more than sadistic pleasure than Ted's actions ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

So you're contending that someone can murder, rape and kidnap for other than purely sadistic pleasure. You are suggesting then that murder and rape can be justified by ulterior motives. The "but if" really killed you.

 

[Eireann]

Also, Knight agreed to let Zakath choose the "proper" definition that would be used in the debate for murder. Zak went to the dictionary, and for the purpose of the debate, officially agreed upon by both parties, the definition of murder is "unlawful killing."

Can anyone posit an instance where an unlawful killing might not be wrong? How about euthenasia for the painfully terminally ill?

 

[Brother Vinny]

So you're contending that someone can murder, rape and kidnap for other than purely sadistic pleasure. You are suggesting then that murder and rape can be justified by ulterior motives. The "but if" really killed you.

Not really. In Knight's worldview (and mine), the rape and murder are still absolutely wrong even though "Ted" is being coerced into it. Zakath had to present a scenario in which he would concede that such an event was not absolutely wrong. In so doing, he has (unfortunately, for him) de facto conceded that such a horrific act is absolutely wrong without the "rest of the story."

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Eireann states...

So you're contending that someone can murder, rape and kidnap for other than purely sadistic pleasure. You are suggesting then that murder and rape can be justified by ulterior motives. The "but if" really killed you.

Nice try, but Knight (I) was responding to Zakath's contentions and you have attempted to take me out of context.

I am not surprised.

Desperate times take desperate measures.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe


Not really. In Knight's worldview (and mine), the rape and murder are still absolutely wrong even though "Ted" is being coerced into it. Zakath had to present a scenario in which he would concede that such an event was not absolutely wrong. In so doing, he has (unfortunately, for him) de facto conceded that such a horrific act is absolutely wrong without the "rest of the story."

Not exactly. He has merely conceded that such a horrific act is wrong, not absolutely wrong. In fact, the scenario he provided has got Knight thinking about it. You can tell by his verbal sparring that it jarred Knight. It demonstrates (not proof, but demonstrable logic) that the act might not be absolutely wrong with the "rest of the story." All Zak had to do was show a situation, any situation, that would not be absolutely wrong to win his case on those three issues (murder, rape, kidnapping) anyway. He did that.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Eireann states...

You asked for a scenario, and you got one. Now you want to complain about it? Sure it sounds crazy. Sure it sounds unlikely. But after 9/11, it certainly isn't impossible, is it? It's possible, which is what you asked for. You wanted it, now deal with it. How poor a loser are you?

Poor Eirean left out in the dark and still doesn't see what is happening.

I never asked for a "crazy" scenario, I am glad however, Zakath provided one, an even more morally wrong scenario than I could imagine!

I simply asked Zakath if my specific example were absolutely wrong.

Think about it Eirean, Zakath has attempted to justify a morally wrong action which he admits is "wrong" and "maybe absolutely wrong" by giving that action a even more morally wrong motive by Zakath's own admission!

Blow smoke all you like but that was a horrible move on his part.