Instigator / Pro
1514
rating
6
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5848
Suicide is sometimes justified
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 4,096
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
Contender / Con
1500
rating
12
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Suicide: The deliberate self-inflicted ending of one's own life. Can include indirect means, as long as it is primarily intended to end one's own life above all else except fundamental ethical/axiological goals.
Justified: Objectively ethically and/or axiologically warranted. Objectively preferable (or at least equal to alternative(s)) given what is objectively ethical/unethical and/or valuable/"unvaluable".
-----
Note: Con automatically loses the debate if they purposefully copy the arguments I use in my other suicide debate.
Round 1
Axiological and ethical justification (as described in the description) require axiological and ethical "oughts".
1. The is-ought gap.
The is-ought gap is the idea that there doesn't appear to be a justifiable method to justify "oughts" (statements about what axiologically or morally ought to be) using only "is" statements (statements that are merely descriptive.)
An "ought" is often regarded as a type of "is" statement, a statement describing something that just so happens to be moral/axiological. However using the common definitions under the context of the is-ought gap, "is" statements are exclusively statements that do not describe anything ethical/axiological, and "oughts" are statements that do describe something ethical/axiological.
My main point: In order for Con to demonstrate that we probably ought (not) to do something using only common "is" axioms, they will need to demonstrate that this gap can at least probably be bridged.
2. Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements.
In other words, we should assume that simpler hypotheses are more likely until we have sufficient evidence to justify more specific hypotheses.
My main point: Our default should be to hold that there are no oughts, since that hypothesis requires less elements to justify.
3. Argument against free will.
Given that Con implied (in the comments) that they will take a Christian angle to this debate, I will provide an argument against it.
Given that Con implied (in the comments) that they will take a Christian angle to this debate, I will provide an argument against it.
Much of Christian theology seems dependent on the existence of free will (defined as that which is sufficient to justify moral responsibility), and generally christians are metaphysical libertarians, so at first I will attempt to refute the relevant forms of libertarian free will.
P1. If the probability of an event is 0% or 100%, it is entirely determined to occur or not occur.
P2. If the probability of an event is between 0% and 100%, we can break the probability down into a deterministic part and a random part. (By saying that it's entirely determined to have the particular probability that it does, and that it's entirely random what the actual outcome will be within that probability.)
P3. Given premises 1 and 2, every event must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic part(s).
P4. No one can have control over anything without in some way having some causal influence over it.
P5. It is impossible to have causal influence over anything entirely random. (If you have causal influence over it, it must be partially determined by you. Something partially determined cannot be entirely random.)
P6. Given premises 4 and 5, for any given event's random part(s) (if it has any), we cannot have control over them.
P7. For anything that can fairly be called a human choice, the human must consciously decide it.
P8. All human conscious decisions are largely caused by underlying mental processes.
P9. Given premise 3, All events in human mental processes must be entirely made up of random and/or deterministic components.
P10. Given premise 6, humans cannot have control over the random components of the events in their mental processes.
P11. Given premises 7-10, whatever ultimate control a human has over a choice must be from their control over the deterministic components of the events in their mental processes that contributed to that choice.
P12. Given premises 7 and 8, more than a small group of irreducible mental processes would have to be used for a human to control what the deterministic components of a small group of irreducible mental processes would do. (So multiple choices would have to be used to control a portion of what contributed to a given choice, requiring an infinite regress.)
P13. It is very unlikely that we have an infinite past of somehow controlling infinite choices. (Because it is such a specific and unsupported hypothesis.)
Conclusion. Given premises 11-13, it is very likely that every human's choices are all entirely caused by things ultimately outside of their control.
Forfeited
Round 2
Extended.
1. The is-ought gap.
Pro has told me that I must show how the is-ought gap can probably be bridged, knowing full well that this has been a problem in philosophy for centuries. And if that is the only way I can win this debate, then I must either concede right now, or demonstrate how I can showcase "oughts" in a different way. And because no one has done the former yet, I am forced to do the latter.
2. Occam's Razor.
You say that the existence of "oughts" adds an element to our logic, whereas the non-existence of "oughts" does not. Therefore, if we cannot prove the existence of "oughts," we must assume that they don't exist. But if these "oughts" don't really exist, how come we have adhered to them / always known we should adhere to them since the dawn of mankind? Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, adultery is wrong. If these morals didn't exist, wouldn't we be like animals, hunting each other and working our way up the food chain? If there were no "oughts," we would just live by survival of the fittest. Where did these things come from if they are nothing more than human fabrications?
3. Argument against free will.
While it is true that your consciousness is confined to your brain, which includes your soul, premise 8 is fundamentally misunderstanding how it works. It is not the mental processes that determine your decisions, but rather, your decisions that determine the mental processes. The free will within your soul can modify the electrical signals that are in your brain, such that you can do the things that you want to do. Of course, if your brain lacks the certain electrical signals to do something, then you won't be able to do it. But within the capabilities of your brain and body, your free will is controlling those mental processes. Thus, it is still you making the decisions. And thus, if you decide to kill yourself, you really are the one deciding to kill yourself.
With that being said, what if someone is drugged? Well, remember how I said that your soul and free will is capable of modifying your mental processes to the degree of your brain's capabilities? Well, if you brain's capabilities are such that you cannot think straight, then you won't be capable of thinking straight. Only the things you are capable of doing.
Round 3
1. The is-ought gap
And if [demonstrating that ought can be derived from is] is the only way I can win this debate, then I must either concede right now, or demonstrate how I can showcase "oughts" in a different way. And because no one has done the former yet, I am forced to do the latter.
Con does not attempt to refute the is-ought section of my first argument, instead indicating that they will demonstrate the existence of oughts without deriving ought from is. So their position currently rests on whether they succeed at this or not.
2. Occam's Razor
But if these "oughts" don't really exist, how come we have adhered to them / always known we should adhere to them since the dawn of mankind?
I would argue that we have not always known that we should adhere to them, only that we've almost always acted like it and maybe believed it. And I think we should expect that we would have almost always acted like it even if it isn't true, because acting like it seems to be evolutionarily advantageous.
Would (the group who's consciously skeptical of all moral claims and acts accordingly) or (the group who's members act as if they should objectively act for each others' benefit) be more likely to survive? I think the latter, by a very large margin.
Thus I think that whether oughts truly exist or not, we would expect to see humans evolve to act as though they do.
Murder is wrong, theft is wrong, adultery is wrong. If these morals didn't exist, wouldn't we be like animals, hunting each other and working our way up the food chain? If there were no "oughts," we would just live by survival of the fittest. Where did these things come from if they are nothing more than human fabrications?
Animals don't tend to hunt other members of their species (for what I consider to be pretty obvious evolutionary reasons), and we certainly have a history of hunting other animals. So I think we do "hunt each other and work our way up the food chain" to almost the extent that most other species do, and I think the small average difference is probably caused by laws and us being a very social species that relies very heavily on cooperation.
Would it be more evolutionarily advantageous for humans (again, a species that relies heavily on cooperation and social cohesion) to murder and steal from one another than to not? I don't think so, therefore whether or not these things are objectively bad, I think we should expect to see them naturally selected against.
Adultery is more interesting. I would claim that we tend to act like it's bad because of jealousy, and that jealousy likely evolved as a means to combat the threat of losing one's mate and thus not being able to pass down one's genes.
So I think the human species does "live by survival of the fittest", but the species has evolved such that individuals of the species tend to largely cooperate with each other.
3. Free will
It is not the mental processes that determine your decisions, but rather, your decisions that determine the mental processes.
By "underlying mental processes" I just meant whatever processes are involved in the reasoning process that ultimately results in the decision, I'm fine with conceding that the soul exists and behaves as you described for this particular argument. If the decision has no underlying processes whatsoever (if that's possible), then it is entirely undetermined and cannot be in any way determined to have a probability of possibility x over y, so you are essentially only left with an unbounded random number generator if you're left with anything coherent at all. Is this what you mean when you say "free will"? If not, it seems like you have 3 options for what to argue for (regardless of whether a soul is involved, since at that point the decision-making mechanism would include the soul):
- Argue that the mechanism is made up of random and deterministic components.
- Argue that the mechanism is entirely deterministic.
- Argue against premise 3.
If you choose one of the first two options, you need to demonstrate that this can be sufficient to justify moral responsibility.
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
I can relate, no worries.
Crap I procrastinated too long.
I'm fine with that, I am an agnostic atheist (as in below 50% but above 0% confident in the existence of God, probably specifically somewhere around 1-5% confident).
If I entered this debate, it would end up being a debate about the existence of God, unless you're also a Christian.