Instigator / Pro

Owen_T

1465

rating

debates

55.71%

won

Topic

#5635

The desire to live forever is selfish

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Americandebater24

Tags

Immortality

Parameters

Publication date: 08.03.2024 08:39PM
Last updated date: 09.30.2024 02:48AM
Type: Rated
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open
Minimal rating: 1,450

Contender / Con

Americandebater24

1442

rating

debates

58.33%

won

Description

Considering out current circumstances, wanting to live forever is selfish.

All definitions follow that of the Merrian Webster.

Round 1

Owen_T

08.04.2024 09:08PM

Pro

There are billions of unborn people that will one day walk this earth.

Why should you get more of your fair share of resource when there is a limited amount of resources available and others that will need them?

Americandebater24

08.04.2024 09:39PM

Con

It is commonly stated that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If this holds, desiring to maintain what is already recognized as a right cannot be deemed selfish. For some, happiness is simply being a teacher, a soldier, or pursuing another life goal. Many would say, "That is a natural ambition." Therefore, the aspiration to live indefinitely should be viewed no differently. Wanting to live forever is not selfish; it is a natural inclination to wish to live as long as we desire.

Now, pro tries to imply that living forever is selfish because billions of people yet born will want/need the same resources we have if we were able to live forever. What sense does that make? Someone being able to live forever would not mean they would deny billions of people not yet born from sharing the same Earth as them. Nor would it mean we would horde said resources for ourselves. In fact, since we would be incapable of needing resources to sustain ourselves, being immortal would benefit said billions.

Let us also not forget that selfishness is defined as being concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others. This is a very low criteria definition. By that logic, anything we do, from drinking water, eating cereal, or even just denying a request even one time, could be seen as selfish. Therefore, we should not see immortality as a unique desire that only uncaring people think of. Almost all of us at one point and time, and in some cases, still want to live forever. Is it childish and unobtainable? Yes, is it selfish? No, as it is a natural desire.

Wanting to be alive till the end of time is a normal thing. It means you recognize the value of your life and the gift of staying on the Earth. There is nothing selfish in recognizing the greatness of life nor never wanting said happiness to end.

Round 2

Owen_T

08.07.2024 04:53AM

Pro

My opponents' arguments:

1. The desire of eternal life is natural, and therefore cannot be selfish.

2. Since those immortals would not need to consume resource to survive, it is not selfish.

3. Here, my opponent says that technically you can make everything look selfish, and for some reason makes immortality not selfish.

1. The desire of eternal life is natural, and therefore cannot be selfish.

I do not see how concluding that if something is natural, automatically means it is not selfish. It is natural for the wealthy to want tax cuts. Is it selfish that they want to give less of their fortunes to keep schools and hospitals open? The question of whether or not it is fair is irrelevant. It shows the traits described in the pre-agreed upon definition.

2. Since those immortals would not need to consume resource to survive, it is not selfish.

This is making an assumption, but as I did not specify in the description, we will assume its truth. In one way or another, you do consume resource or emits carbon, from starting a forest fire to farting. Why should you be able to emit more carbon than others around you?

3. Here, my opponent says that technically you can make everything look selfish, and for some reason makes immortality not selfish.

This is a confusing argument, as it seems like you're arguing my side. Yes, by the logic of the definition, a lot of things are considered selfish. Including wanting to be immortal. This logic being the definition that was set in the description, you are admitting my victory.

Americandebater24

08.08.2024 07:18PM

Con

Pro is misconstruing my arguments. The points I made so far are,

That wanting to live forever is a natural ambition.

We are told that our lives have value. So, wanting to keep said life forever is not selfishness, but a natural wish to keep what you value.
Wanting to be immortal is what makes some people happy since they do not get tired of being alive and so that would be a case in which a person is merely pursuing their subjective standard of happiness.

2. Choosing oneself over billions of others and then deeming said act selfish is a subjective viewpoint.

If everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then you cannot diminish said value by comparing it to other people.
Pro did not establish why other people being immortal would prevent billions of others from being born or deprive them of resources. By definition an immortal cannot die of hunger or thirst and thus, there would be no need to consume said resources that others need.
Thus, being immortal would benefit billions of people because the more people who became incapable of dying, the less consumption of limited resources would occur.

3. Anything could be viewed as selfish as it is a subjective opinion.

The definition is defined as anytime prioritize yourself, you are selfish. This would mean if you ever had a self-serving thought, an action that helped you but not others, and anything in which you are the only benefactor. By this unreasonable and ultimately subjective opinion, there is nothing you can say or do and not be seen as selfish. thus, considering everlasting life as a selfish desire is subjective.
Since the definition has such low criteria just to be applied regardless of reasons or situation, it cannot be established for a fact that wanting to live forever is indeed selfish since it is a matter of opinion. It can also be argued that immorality is a completely normal desire that most have desired at some point in their lives or even desire now.
I concede that wanting to live forever could be seen as childish and impossible. However, it is not selfish as selfishness is dependent on the person's perspective. Valuing one's life and never wanting to die is a recognition of the value of your own life. Not selfishness because others think so.

The opposition has failed to address most of the points raised. They have merely condensed the argument into three points, which, I must point out, were inaccurately quoted. My statements have not been correctly represented by the opposition. At no point have I endorsed the opposition's stance. They claim that the desire for eternal life is inherently selfish. I contend that selfishness is such a broad concept that it can be applied to virtually anything, making it a matter of personal opinion rather than an objective fact. Therefore, immortality cannot be deemed selfish by definition, which contradicts the opposition's main argument.

Round 3

Owen_T

08.13.2024 02:56AM

Pro

I'm going to address each of your bullets in my argument.

1. That wanting to live forever is a natural ambition.

We are told that our lives have value. So, wanting to keep said life forever is not selfishness, but a natural wish to keep what you value.

People value money, but it's selfish not to pay taxes. You can, and should value your life, but that doesn't mean you should get more than others. Holding something in value does not mean being greedy with it is okay.

Wanting to be immortal is what makes some people happy since they do not get tired of being alive and so that would be a case in which a person is merely pursuing their subjective standard of happiness.

Murder makes a sociopath happy, therefore, they're "merely pursuing their subjective standard of happiness."

2.Choosing oneself over billions of others and then deeming said act selfish is a subjective viewpoint.

If everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then you cannot diminish said value by comparing it to other people.

I'll provide another scenario here. If a billionaire dies and one son takes 70% of his wealth, and the second son gets 30%. The first brother having more money does not diminish the wealth of the second, but it was still selfish of him to take more.

Pro did not establish why other people being immortal would prevent billions of others from being born or deprive them of resources. By definition an immortal cannot die of hunger or thirst and thus, there would be no need to consume said resources that others need.

No matter what you do, you'll always be producing carbon, and the only way one could not consume any research is to bury themself alive. You want to not be homeless? You're taking up real estate. Do you want to wear clothes? Pee in a toilet? Breathe oxygen? Then you're consuming resource. And just because you don't need to eat, doesn't mean you won't feel hunger, your subconscious will always want to keep you alive, even if it's impossible to die.

Thus, being immortal would benefit billions of people because the more people who became incapable of dying, the less consumption of limited resources would occur.

Key word less. We're capable of passing down wisdom and knowledge to future generations. Someone being alive forever is of no benefit to humanity.

Also, directly addressing your argument, you're saying that because people would consume less resource, less resource would be consumed in total. However, you have over looked one vital piece of information. Humans make babies.

3. Anything could be viewed as selfish as it is a subjective opinion.

The definition is defined as anytime prioritize yourself, you are selfish. This would mean if you ever had a self-serving thought, an action that helped you but not others, and anything in which you are the only benefactor. By this unreasonable and ultimately subjective opinion, there is nothing you can say or do and not be seen as selfish. thus, considering everlasting life as a selfish desire is subjective.

Yes, having a single self serving thought is, by the definition provided, selfish. Yes, everything you do can be in some way (including the wish of immortality) summed up as selfish. However, selfish does not inherently mean bad.

Since the definition has such low criteria just to be applied regardless of reasons or situation, it cannot be established for a fact that wanting to live forever is indeed selfish since it is a matter of opinion. It can also be argued that immorality is a completely normal desire that most have desired at some point in their lives or even desire now.

Generally, it is a matter of opinion. That's why I provided a definition, which we can apply to objectively determine what is selfish.

I concede that wanting to live forever could be seen as childish and impossible. However, it is not selfish as selfishness is dependent on the person's perspective. Valuing one's life and never wanting to die is a recognition of the value of your own life. Not selfishness because others think so.

See previous responses.

My opponent made an excellence point in that everything can be determined, in some way, as selfish.

Determining selfishness is not subjective in this scenario, as there is a a agreed upon definition.

Americandebater24

08.17.2024 04:25AM

Con

My adversary argues that selfishness is objective, based on a commonly accepted definition. Yet, they overlook the fact that there is no consensus on what constitutes a selfish act. For instance, is it selfish to withhold your last kidney from a stranger, or is it prudent since you require it to live just as much as they do? The desire to preserve one's life, or even to aspire for immortality, is not intrinsically selfish.

Who has the authority to dictate the lifespan of others? Can one truly claim they would forgo the chance for eternal life out of fear of being perceived as selfish? Even if someone affirms this, can we be certain of its truth? Immortality is not feasible in reality. Consequently, it's impossible to discern who would succumb to the allure of everlasting life and who would resist. Thus, we cannot ascertain the rationale for declaring someone's motives as selfish.

My esteemed opponent has no answer for any of these questions. All they have said so far is that living forever is selfish because doing so somehow prevents future generations from enjoying life due to you consuming the same resources as them. They have even conceded that there is no action one can do that would not be construed in some way as selfish. Yet, they also say doing selfish things is not necessarily bad.

So, at best my opponent has established how some people may view immortality as selfish. And at worst, they have admitted that every action can be viewed as selfish by a commonly accepted definition. However, they have not yet proven that Immortality is selfish. For that to be possible, they must prove that Morality is objective, which they cannot do.

The simple truth is that selfishness, like all moral actions, is a matter of perspective. You cannot say that Immortality is selfish no matter what, and then admit that such a position is based on a subjunctive opinion. Either immorality is a concept that can be seen as both selfish and a natural desire to people depending on their opinion on the matter, or it is inherently selfish to want everlasting life. Pro needs to pick a side.

If the pro is arguing the former, then they have already lost the debate as there are ways to view immortality as a natural wish that many have at some point in their lives. If they are arguing the latter, then the pro needs to show proof that no one under any circumstances can be justified in wanting to live forever and must always be seen as selfish for wanting it. They simply have not done so during the debate so far.

Round 4

Owen_T

08.24.2024 04:25AM

Pro

Forfeited

Americandebater24

08.31.2024 02:48AM

Con

Since my opponent forfeited, I supposed they gave up on the debate.

Barney

09.03.2024 05:44PM

-->

@Trent0405

@Americandebater24

@Owen_T

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).

While the voter did not cover every issue, they indeed covered the meat and potatoes. Leaving the meat and potatoes a tie based on their analysis is fine.

**************************************************

Owen_T

08.24.2024 04:14PM

Sorry about the forfeiture. I totally procrastinated writing an argument for too long.

Barney

08.04.2024 04:43AM

Good topic.

Considering out
Should be
Considering our

Also you should read Eric by Sir Terry Pratchett

TheUnderdog

08.03.2024 09:58PM

-->

@Owen_T

You are correct; the desire to live forever IS selfish.

Buying a house for it and refusing to let homeless people stay with you rent free is ALSO selfish.

Refusing to adopt starving children because you would rather spread your own genes is selfish.

In many contexts, there is nothing wrong with being selfish.

Mall

08.03.2024 09:08PM

The desire to live forever is actually based in religion. Which the same faith teaches to be selfless.

Trent0405

08.31.2024 06:39PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

ARGUMENTS

I am going to reduce this debate to three main points, as I feel these three points do adequately encapsulate the meat of this debate.

Resource Consumption

It seems both debaters accept that these immortal people will not need to eat or drink. In Pro's final round, he tries to backtrack, arguing that immortal people will still need to eat because "[their] subconscious will always want to keep [them] alive." If he brought up this rather vague retort in his R2, I'd be more sympathetic. But the fact it was brought up last minute and he failed to elaborate beyond this leaves me unmoved. In contrast, Pro does successfully argue that immortal people will be permanent blights on other resources. Immortal people will still leave a carbon footprint, occupy real estate, buy clothing, and of course, fart. Nonetheless, I have to contrast this with the fact that immortal people will presumably not need food or water to sustain themselves. I am torn on this point, though I do slightly favour Pro's case simply due to the fact that immortal people will need to consume indefinitely. That being said, whatever ground edge either side gained here is lost later in the debate (see "What Does it Mean to be Selfish?").

Natural Right

I did not understand Con's point here. Pro points out that pursuing a natural desire is not mutually exclusive with being selfish (uses tax avoidance as an example), and never gets an adequate response.

What Does it Mean to be Selfish?

This is the point I had to think the most about. Pro supports a very broad definition of selfishness, which as Con points out, could be applied to practically anything. Pro tries to spin this as proof that Con agrees with his side of the resolution, but Con affirms that the broadness of the term kills any objective basis for using the word. Of course, Pro notes that dictionaries exist to provide an objective rubric for situations like this, but when you blow out that rubric to encompass any and every action that a person could ever do, the supposed objectivity of the definition loses its power.

In the end, both entertain an incredibly broad definition of selfishness. Pro uses this to support the idea that everything is selfish, while Con uses this to point out that the term can never be used objectively if the definition is so open to interpretation. In the end, I am left kind of agree with both of them. Sure, everything is selfish, but in the words of Buddy Pine, "when everyone is [selfish], no one will be."

CONDUCT

Con wins due to an unfortunate forfeiture from Pro.