BATTLE TALK - Battle Royale II - Knight vs. Zakath

[novice]

Ultimately the determination of how these battle goes will be judged on how good each combatant did at representing his side of the debate. How happy will like minded people be with each combatants presentations?

I can't imagine moral relativists will be happy with Zakath's presentation.

 

[cirisme]

Since Knight still has not demonstrated the existence of a moral absolute

He has and zakath seems to agree.

He has merely asserted that certain actions are absolutely wrong and has been content to leave it at that.

Oh please. He stated that some things are wrong whether an individual or society believes it is wrong or not. Zakath agreed.

He has not shown how or why murder, rape, or kidnapping fit the agreed-upon definition of absolute morality.

If a moral is above the relative view of morality, and zakath has agreed that there some things like that, it is absolute.

He has not shown that they supercede human standards.

Do they have to?

You are judging him the winner merely because your opinion agrees with his, not on debatory grounds.

That's a high claim. I don't agree with a few things he said and Zatkath has been so pathetic in his defense it is sad. The only reason you assert that Knight is losing is because you disagree with him.

 

[Valmoon]

Until tomorrow when murder is defined as: "the rightful killing of..."

Absolutes do not change with time supposedly. So trying to build a case for absolutes on words that change with time is a flawed and failed idea.

 

[cirisme]

By the way, still nobody has answered my question about why I haven't been allowed to vote on this debate. I've tried three times to register a vote on the poll, and have been refused each time. I'm starting to think seriously that the fix really is in, and I'm not saying that just to be funny. If that isn't the case, then please explain why my vote has been denied each time I've tried to register it.

What does it say/do?

I have worked on VBB previously, and the only way to "fix" a poll would be to "fix" all polls.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain
I find it hard to understand why people think a moral relativist can not have a standard at all. Of course they have a standard, it's just not universal.

I also can not understand how the relativist can then claim to be able to evaluate other standards. The most a relativist can say is that any standard, ultimately, is no better or worse than the next.

Pilgrim

It's an everlasting loop of moral computations that disintegrates into nothingness, but never quite get's there, because of absolute morality. It's like trying to defeat the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Valmoon
Until tomorrow when murder is defined as: "the rightful killing of..."

Absolutes do not change with time supposedly. So trying to build a case for absolutes on words that change with time is a flawed and failed idea.

Definitions of words may change, but there essence does not. I could call the color orange, red, but that doesn't change the color.

 

[marcelpo]

KNIGHT:"Upon the fact that rape, murder and kidnapping are by definition always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong! "

Unfortunately, you are quite mistaken by calling it a FACT. Its NOT a fact, but a definition. What you are saying is this: wrongfull killing is wrong. Well, duh. Now show that murder as you defined it exists objectively.

You can't because your definition includes the word "wrong". My question is: according to what standard must it be wrong?


www.dictionary.com "WRONG:
1) Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

2) Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
3) Unfair; unjust."

Now, number 1 can't be applied to killing because a killing is ALWAYS in conformity with fact or truth. Thus, we are left with definition 2. Of all things mentioned, only "contrary to law" can be established objectively.

For murder to be absolutely wrong, murder MUST ALWAYS EXIST REGARDLESS OF HUMAN, SOCIETY OR CIVILISATION. Unfortunately, the definition of "wrong" includes ONLY human, society or civilisation standards. Suppose there were NO laws. Would murder still exist? Not according to the definition. Thus, murder doesn't exist objectively but only subjectively. But how can something subjective claim to be ABSOLUTE? Quite simple: it can't.

Regardless of what tricks KNIGHT tries to pull by switching definitions, the ONLY way he can win is by demonstrating that there IS such a thing as an absolute standard of wrongness. So far, no luck.

Game over, please insert lots of coins.

 

[cirisme]

Goose,

Definitions of words may change, but there essence does not. I could call the color orange, red, but that doesn't change the color.

Very good point. :thumb: :thumb:

The name may change, and change frequently, but the action doesn't. Today it's called murder... 2,000 years from now it may be called killing, it doesn't matter. The name changed, the action didn't.

One more thing, Eireann,

You are judging him the winner merely because your opinion agrees with his, not on debatory grounds.

I believe in both moral relativism and absolutism. So your arguement doesn't fly

 

[Big Finn]

Zakath really lost the argument in my opinion when he tried to create a scenario in which the man is under duress. While duress can be used to mitigate the guilt of a horrific act it does not mitigate the immorality of the act itself. His whole argument there was completely flawed and Knight missed it.

That guilt is mitagated under certain circumstances, such as extreme duress, argues that the immorality of the act is always there. The whole argument of mitigation of guilt agrees that the act was wrong to begin with. Mitigation of guilt could not exist if guilt wasn't there to begin with.

 

[Valmoon]

The essence of rape and murder is the exact thing in question. When you define murder and rape as "wrongfull killing..." then it is important to see if the concept of "wrongfull" is agreed upon. Obviously it is not. To get at the essence of "wrong" you need some outside idea to see if everyone is on the same track and clearly they are not.

Marcelpo said earlier, "For him to win, he needs to show that "wrongfull" is an OBJECTIVE term."

I couldnt agree more. The essence of "wrongfullness" is the very thing Knight hasnt addressed. Presumably for him to show that moral absolutes exist he must also show that "right" and "wrong" are not relative terms. He has not shown this in any post as of yet. He might as well ask if murder is relative if it is always relative.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by Valmoon
The essence of rape and murder is the exact thing in question. When you define murder and rape as "wrongfull killing..." then it is important to see if the concept of "wrongfull" is agreed upon. Obviously it is not. To get at the essence of "wrong" you need some outside idea to see if everyone is on the same track and clearly they are not.

Marcelpo said earlier, "For him to win, he needs to show that "wrongfull" is an OBJECTIVE term."

I couldnt agree more. The essence of "wrongfullness" is the very thing Knight hasnt addressed. Presumably for him to show that moral absolutes exist he must also show that "right" and "wrong" are not relative terms. He has not shown this in any post as of yet. He might as well ask if murder is relative if it is always relative.

Could you describe the color "orange" for me, without showing me it? How could I believe you that if you showed me the color, that it was absolutely orange?

This is the extent of relativistic skeptical foolishness.

 

[Valmoon]

Elaborate in english please Goose.

Also did Knight and Zak reach an agreement on the definition of murder? It's not a common dictionary definition if they did. I was scanning their posts and didnt see it.

Every definition I have found does not include "wrong" in the definition of murder. So far all dictionaries have used the word unlawfull. Unlawfull likewise makes no mention of "wrong" in its definition.

 

[cirisme]

I think what he means is that "orange" is a way of referring to a color. Likewise, "red" refers to a color with 0xFF amout of red, 00 of green, 00 of blue.

Furthermore, "AJ" is my name. If I had been named something different like Josh(I've always wanted that name) would I be a different person? Absolutely not.

 

[marcelpo]

>>Could you describe the color "orange" for me, without showing me it? <<

Sure.

"An electromagnetic wave that is the solution to the Maxwell equations in vacuum with a wavelength of between 680nm and 660nm."

I know that light of this frequency absolutely exists because my SPECTRAL ANALYZER (a measurement device) detects it.

Try again though.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
Valmoon you said "The fact that definitions can change shows how empty this argument is. This is a word game if I ever saw it." The definition of murder has not changed in the sense that it always means some type of wrongful or unlawful taking of human life and is almost always associated with "malice" or "evil intent". (emphasis mine)

"Almost always" is quite different from "always." "Almost always" implies that there might be a few select situations where murder is not done with malice or evil intent, which of course destroys the absolutist's argument.

Therefore if there is such a thing as "murder", by definition it is always wrong!

By your own words above, if there is such a thing as "murder," then it is merely "almost always" wrong.

Let me remind you that Knight said that murder, when properly defined is always wrong. He then left it to Zakath to provide the definition of murder, even allowing Zak to go to the dictionary for that definition. He must then abide by the definition Zakath provided. Zak's definition of murder was "unlawful killing." This is the definition both combatants have agreed upon as the proper definition of murder. It isn't difficult to show examples of unlawful killing that are not ethically wrong. A great many people would agree that applying euthenasia to a terminally ill patient who has no chance of recovery and who is living their last days in great agony is not ethically wrong. In many places it is unlawful, however. Therefore it is "murder" (by the definition both combatants have agreed upon) that is not absolutely ethically wrong. Debate over (if I were one of the combatants.)

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by cirisme


What does it say/do?

I have worked on VBB previously, and the only way to "fix" a poll would be to "fix" all polls.

It always says, "Your session is invalid."

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by cirisme
Oh please. He stated that some things are wrong whether an individual or society believes it is wrong or not. Zakath agreed.

Knight sought an agreement on an absolute from Zakath. He didn't get that. He got an agreement that Zakath's opinions on right and wrong do not always have to coincide with the majority opinion of society. Nowhere in that did Zakath state or imply that his opinion is based on anything which supercedes human standards, which is the definition of absolute they've agreed upon for this debate. He has stated that his opinion is relative to his experience, which does not always coincide with the opinions of society. If you take that to be a representation of belief in an absolute, then you don't set your standards very high.

If a moral is above the relative view of morality, and zakath has agreed that there some things like that, it is absolute.

No, Zakath only agreed that there are some things in his opinion that are apart from the relative (societal -- his society) view of morality. That is not a statement of superceding standards. He is still well within the relativist framework to make such statements.

Do they have to?

If he plans to prove his side of the debate, as opposed to merely attacking Zak's side, then he certainly does have to! That was a rediculous question. Remember, relativists are not absolutists. Thus, we don't have an absolute definition of relativism. Therefore, if he were to debunk Zakath's position, that would still leave all the other relativists, and our respective positions for him to deal with. He doesn't have enough time in his lifetime to debunk all the various views of relativity. And that is what he would need to do if he hoped that debunking relativity would in fact prove absolutism. If he wants to prove absolutism in his lifetime, he's going to have to take a different tack, such as ... oh, I don't know, maybe actually demonstrating the absolutes he claims exist? He hopes that debunking one relativist's position (which he has also failed to do, by the way) will prove the absolutist's position. That's a sad assumption.

That's a high claim. I don't agree with a few things he said and Zatkath has been so pathetic in his defense it is sad. The only reason you assert that Knight is losing is because you disagree with him.

No, I assert that Knight is losing because Knight has failed to establish his case. So far, all of Knight's arguments can be boiled down to this simple statement: "I believe that 'murder is wrong' is an absolute moral." Note the "I believe." Still not seeing how that proves that the moral is absolute. That's like saying Santa Claus is absolutely real because I believe he is real. Knight has not made a case. Knight has allowed his time and energy to be wasted with attacking his opponent's case and failed to make his own. That's why he is losing. Plain and simple.

 

[cirisme]

It always says, "Your session is invalid."

Not uncommon, it's probably cookies. I would be very cautious about accusing TOL of fixing the voting booth, Zakath is losing by 18 votes(about 47%) so I would doubt that they would go to such great lengths to keep one person from voting.

"Almost always" is quite different from "always." "Almost always" implies that there might be a few select situations where murder is not done with malice or evil intent, which of course destroys the absolutist's argument.

How does it do so? To say that it's not absolute if there's an exception is simply stupid.

By your own words above, if there is such a thing as "murder," then it is merely "almost always" wrong.

Again, you're being illogical. Murder is almost always with malice. However, malice is not a condition for murder. It is almost always an attribute, but never a condition. For murder to be murder, or rape to be rape, etc, all conditions must be met and all exceptions must be unmet.

It isn't difficult to show examples of unlawful killing that are not ethically wrong.

I find it interesting that you switch from "morals" to "ethics." For the record, I believe that ethics are man-made, and are relative morals that man adhears to.

 

[cirisme]

Knight sought an agreement on an absolute from Zakath. He didn't get that. He got an agreement that Zakath's opinions on right and wrong do not always have to coincide with the majority opinion of society. Nowhere in that did Zakath state or imply that his opinion is based on anything which supercedes human standards, which is the definition of absolute they've agreed upon for this debate. He has stated that his opinion is relative to his experience, which does not always coincide with the opinions of society.

Which is more correct, Zakath's opinion, or society's? Furthermore, should law be based on Zakath's expiriences or the societies? Also, what if Zakath disagrees with the society? What relatisim comes down to is the one with the bigger stick.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Guys, the voting on in the polls is completely subjective (unlike morality) we are not going to waste any time "fixing" the voting! Give me a break! Last time it was Pilgrim accusing us of fraud now it's Eireann.

Just because "your side" isn't fairing very well you cannot always claim fraud!!!

Furthermore, lets assume their is a glitch in the voting (which there isn't) apparently 73% of the voters are equally having trouble voting for me!

Finally - on the flip side....
If there were voting fraud occurring it would be useless for the moral relativists to argue the practice was wrong.