Which side makes a better case?
avatar
36 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @sharkb8 I wasn't watching the time at all! We should definitely have a follow up! I really enjoyed.

  • 2 years ago

    I enjoyed this debate. I’m curious what a few of you think about it since I’ve seen you discuss similar topics, so I’d welcome your input if you have the time.

    @sigfried
    @behind_the_veil_of_ignorance
    @noahdfarley
    @julian
    @madmike

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 I appreciate how you made it perfectly clear his position was just assertions upon assertions. However, I do have to criticize your unwillingness to commit to the necessary conclusion of your argument concerning his example of two people on an island. After one kills the other, there is only one judge of right or wrong. His example isn’t a weakness in your position no matter the rhetorical tricks he tries to play. It demonstrates conclusively that morality is subjective and rights are bestowed by the state not inherent in the individual.

    • 2 years ago

      @madmike Well I don't think it's necessary to commit because it's subjective, which is the whole point. It's not something that's "right or wrong". It's based on the overall calculus of pros vs. cons, which means in the majority of circumstances, killing someone is gonna be bad. But not that it necessarily is, only that it usually is.

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 Yet in my case where your calculus does not apply, you still said it is wrong and your reasoning was that it is wrong 'to the person that is being killed' what brought you to THAT conclusion if not for reason?

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman what? There is literally no point at which a comparison of pros and cons doesn’t apply. Even in your example, it’s a question of what the best option will be, and that’s relatively subjective. But if both you and your islandmate live in fear that one of you will kill each other, thats problematic for you.

      But If your survival is dependent on killing the person, that’s probably a good decision. And as we agreed, if you mutually agree on it, then that can be beneficial. Thus, it comes down to the calculus. Occasionally the right answer will be to kill the person, although usually that would not be the right answer because it won’t help you, won’t help him, will hurt him, and probably will hurt you.

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 "But if both you and your islandmate live in fear that one of you will kill each other, thats problematic for you"

      That isn't the case. Every single time I create my scenario you feel the need to bring in that someone is going to be losing somehow, which is more telling than anything, to be honest. If nobody is going to lose out but for this person his life. Nobody else is going to lose out. Nobody. Nobody. Is it a bad thing to do? Between you and me. I won't tell anyone else your answer. What is it?

    • 2 years ago

      I mean you already agreed in the debate that it is still wrong because of what I am doing to the person I am killing. Whatever THAT wrong is, is the exact same as a right to life.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman No. There is a difference between a natural right (what you had to prove) vs. a calculus.

      It is NOT inherently bad to kill a person on a desert island. Thus it is not a natural right. But it is probably a good thing for the two of you to agree to work together and not kill each other, for each of your benefit.

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 I asked you, in a scenario where it would not effect anyone else but for the person being killed, whether it is wrong to kill that person, and you said yes. Do you stand by that or would you like to change it?

    • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Just watched this twice and I have no idea what you are talking about.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman Probably watch his other video comment first since it establishes his perspective, and then this was just his response to Mike saying that rights can only come from a state.

      @bronsonkaahui actually I would say a "government" is just multiple people who assert a set of rules. One person can't form a government, because he is an individual. But 2 people can form a government. A family unit is a very small government. Any group of people who make a sequence of rules is in effect, a government. The only difference between a government such as the United States government vs. a family is the size and power held by such a government, but in effect, they do the same things. The formally recognized government exists for the betterment of a group of people, in an attempt to aid their life, security, and financial opportunity. They establish a sequence of rules to bring those goals into effect. A family unit also exists for the betterment of that group of people, in an attempt to aid their life, security and financial opportunity. They establish a sequence of rules to bring those goals into effect.

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Agreed. That's why we spent 20 minutes with him unable to make a single argument saying why natural rights exist. It was just a claim.

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 You make the same claim, without acknowledging it. You are asking for a logical explanation when the one given is a reasonable one.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman Do you think those words mean something?

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 Which?

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman

      Moshe is an idiot.
      - Uhhh... ok... that's a pretty unnecessary comment. Why do you think that?
      Because he is.
      - That doesn't help. Why do you think Moshe is an idiot?
      If I ask people, they will tell me he's an idiot. They know.
      - Yes but what do they know? Why do you and the people think Moshe is an idiot?
      I don't have to say. I came to this conclusion through reason.
      - You came to the conclusion that Moshe is an idiot, through reason?
      Yes. My reason led me to this reasonable conclusion.
      - Well, I suppose some people are idiots, so reason can lead someone to believe that someone else is an idiot. That would be a reasonable conclusion, but you have to say what it is about Moshe that led you to this reasonable conclusion.
      No, you're asking for a logical explanation. I gave you a reasonable explanation.
      - You didn't give an explanation! You just said you had one.
      And I do. My reason has led me to this reasonable conclusion. Moshe is an idiot.
      - What is it about Moshe that leads you to your "reasonable" conclusion that he is an idiot?
      Reason.
      - Yes but what reason?
      Reason.
      - You don't have a reasonable conclusion because you aren't even saying what led you to your conclusion.
      You're asking for a logical explanation. I gave you a reasonable explanation.
      - You didn't give ANY explanation. You just said you had one and then didn't give it. What is your reason for saying Moshe is an idiot?
      Reason. My reason led me to this reasonable conclusion.
      - What reason?
      Reason.
      - k.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman where do rights exist?

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Where does logic, reason, love, hate etc exist?

    • 2 years ago

      Love and hate don't apply since they're personality traits. They are just words used to describe how a person behaves/feels, which is very different from concepts like logic and natural rights. I'll let Bronson answer the rest since the question was addressed to him.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman in the mind.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman logic may be a fundamental property of the universe but it's in a separate category. The universe obeys logic but it doesn't seem to obey love/hate or other mental states.

    • 2 years ago

      @bronsonkaahui Not my point. Rights exist the same way logic, reason, love and hate exist. I am just showing that just because something is intangible does NOT mean it does not exist. I don't care what IT is. IT exists despite the fact that you can't see it, quantify it, replicate it...if that was NOT your point then please elaborate.

    • 2 years ago

      Besides for the fact that the universe does NOT obey logic, that is neither here nor there. WHERE does it exist?

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman You didn't prove that. He answered your question by saying they exist in the mind. Rights are human constructs. We can verify that our minds conceive of how we want natural rights, and I would contend that we humans are better off when we afford these things to each other. But you need to go a step further than that. You're claiming natural rights aren't just a construct of our minds, but that they are naturally deserved. But you haven't made a single argument to prove that. Not in the debate, nor in the comments (as of yet).

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 Slow. Let's do this one step at a time. So we agree that just because something exists in the mind, does not mean it doesn't exists or that it is a human construct. Correct?

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman Probably. But there are things that are purely human mental concepts. You need to prove that this is greater than that.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman "Rights exist the same way logic, reason, love and hate exist."

      So in the mind then, right? Aside from logic you're just describing mental states lol.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman "Rights exist the same way logic, reason, love and hate exist."

      So in the mind then? Aside from logic (which seems to be a fundamental property unlike the other 3), what you're describing are known as "mental states."

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman "Besides for the fact that the universe does NOT obey logic, that is neither here nor there. WHERE does it exist?"

      It's a fundamental property, like the strong nuclear force.

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman "So we agree that just because something exists in the mind, does not mean it doesn't exists or that it is a human construct. Correct?"

      I explained this pretty clearly in the video. It certainly is not composed of atoms and does not occupy a definite place in space-time. So it's not "real" in that sense. In the sense that you wouldn't try to explain to me the dream you had where you traveled to a different gnome dimension was a "real" place. It was just a dream. It wasn't "real" in the everyday sense of the word.

      You do understand that this is a CONCEPT that is CONSTRUCTED in the mind, right?

    • 2 years ago

      @sharkb8 Before proving anything, I am currently addressing @bronsonkaahui point that it doesn't exist simply because it is in the mind. That is utter nonsense. Can we clear that out of the way and move forward?

    • 2 years ago

      @mosheweissman They're actually the same point. Bronson has asserted that natural rights are just a concept that only exist in the mind. You have asserted that they exist outside of the mind. Bronson also had a warrant for his perspective, saying that natural rights have no physical essence, and they are merely a concept. They may be an accurate concept, but they're still a concept.

      You still haven't presented a single warrant for how we can conclude that natural rights exist. (Probably because you only believe in them by faith). It's your burden to prove that this concept is more than just a mental concept, and that natural rights exist outside of the mind.