Jesus fucking Christ

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is possibly the most unique of the the four most common debates. Named after the debates about slavery between Abraham Lincoln and Stephan Douglas, it is the only debate that is competed one-on-one as opposed to pair-vs-pair. Not only that, but the subject matter is much different than the other debates – whereas the other debates focus on policies that the United States should take, Lincoln-Douglas focuses primarily on modern values, hence why it is also called Value Debate.

Last year, all of the debate topics dealt with moral values: can a victim of domestic violence be justified in the use of deadly force? Are corporations under the same moral standards that govern individuals? Should the United Nations intervene in the behalf of human rights in spite of its obligation to respect national sovereignty? Although I was never any good at debating these topics, nevertheless I understood the backgrounds of each one and how they interacted with the concept of morality. This unique experience shall provide for the background of this paper, which will discuss, compare, and contrast the concept of morality between the post-modern age and the ancient philosophical age, and elaborate upon their impacts on society.

It seems that the most logical action to take would be to go in chronological order starting with ancient Greece, the place where modern logic was said to be born and cultivated. Ancient Greeks were obsessed with the concept of the Ideal and the pursuit of absolute perfection. This can be seen in the art they have left behind, where the statues and sculptures refuse to show any hint of imperfection; instead of depicting the weak, old, ugly and crippled, they carved statues which epitomized beauty, youth, and vibrant strength. The common man was never a theme for ancient Greeks; their works were solely concerned with the greatness and perfection which could only be found in their great leaders and gods.

This obsession with perfection was either born from, shared with, or seeped into their philosophical teachings. Either way, the Greeks had one distinct goal in the realm of philosophy: to obtain total knowledge and understanding of “Truth.” This is exemplified in Plato's work The Republic, where he explains in a dialog that a true philosopher was one who pursued the understanding of entire and total truth and knowledge. This belief was shared by Plato's mentor, Socrates, who thought that truth could only be obtained by constantly asking “Why?” until the moral or logical basis for all reasons could be found out.

Obtaining the pinnacle of knowledge and truth in their Ideal was the Greek equivalent of Nirvana. Plato describes this in the Allegory of the Cave, where the escape from a dark and disillusioned cave into the daylight was described as a painful and gradual process that led to happiness. However, Plato failed to describe the point where man was most happy in the sunlight, if there even is such a point. Obtaining the Ideal must imply obtaining true understanding of morality – more specifically, the one true morality. In relation to moral truth, Plato never described the “Ideal,” even though he must have believed in it fervently. In fact, none of the three most infamous Greek philosophers have any real famous discourse on the issue of the Moral Ideal, which is the primary aim of this paper.

Does the absence of the realization of a Moral Ideal imply that it does not exist? Is four thousand years of complex human thought not enough time to have such a realization or receive such an epiphany? Post-modern scholars and philosophers would say no, which brings me to the next point.

If a philosophical spectrum were to be drawn out with Moral Idealism on one end, then on the opposite end would have to be a theory antithetical to it: Moral Relativism. This largely twenty and twenty first century moral construct is best represented with the equation that possibly brought human civilization into the post-modern age: E=mc^2. That equation spells out the entire philosophy of Moral Relativism: just as the speed of objects are relative to the speed of light, a person's moral culpability for his actions is relative to that person's understanding.

In the mid twentieth century, social theorists began to argue against concepts such as the Ideal, reasoning that the Ideal is a far-off dream and unrealistic and unusable for the purposes of social science. This was due to the rise of Totalitarianism and the rise of Communism, and the need to reaffirm democratic values as truth and moral, according to the book The Crisis of Democratic Theory. Thus, social scientists began to examine human behavior to find out what the True Morality was. How people did act, as opposed to how they should act according to previous moral values, determined the course of their research and work.

Post-modern thinkers have realized that there are several separate stages of moral reasoning. As people live their lives, they ascend these stages of moral reasoning and understanding, although it is also possible to descend to previous stages when acceptance of moral reasoning and understanding collapses. These stages of moral reasoning then produce stages of moral culpability. Therefore, according to moral relativists a person is only accountable for the actions he or she knew to be wrong – explaining why we never punish a baby for anything because it is unable to account for anything, and why we do not punish pre-adolescents on the same level as adults.

In the parlance of today's world, this reasoning is the most prevalent of moral theories. “I didn't know” has eventually come to mean “I'm not accountable.” This runs contrary to ancient Greek belief in the Moral Ideal, in which people should learn and know and have the true sense of morality and apply it to everyday lives. This is the debate between ancient and post-modern philosophy: where does accountability lie? Is it in some absolute truth of nature, or is it in confines of human understanding?

This debate is also known as objectivity versus subjectivity, with Greek philosophy back the former and post-modern philosophy backing the latter. Two examples can be used to illustrate this debate: the first will exemplify the two sides in an armed robbery, while the second will examine the sides more closely when applied to the novel The Chronicles of a Death Foretold.

The first example goes like this: a man tries to mug you with a revolver that is empty, although you do not know that it is. You happen to be the faster draw and manage to shoot the mugger. Objectivists would say that because there was no ammunition in the gun, there was no need to shoot the mugger. Subjectivists would say that because you did not know there was no ammunition in the gun, than you shooting that mugger is justified because you thought there was a clear and present danger.

In The Chronicles of a Death Foretold, two adult twins go around town stating that they will kill a man, which they do. While the novel explores what characters did what at what time the day that the twins killed someone, while at the same time asking how morally culpable were the townsfolk for the murder?

Objectivists and Moral Idealists would state that because the townsfolk specifically knew that the twins were about to kill someone they had the moral obligation to stop that crime. In the novel, it seems quite obvious this is true: they go around sharpening their knives in preparation for the kill, and tell people that they plan to kill someone without any traces of humor; in fact, it is said that the twins wanted someone to stop them. Should the townsfolk have taken the twins seriously? If they did, it would certainly stop a crime, and they had sufficient evidence that the twins were conspiring to commit a real crime. Or did they? Or they morally culpable for allowing a crime to be committed?

Subjectivists and Moral Relativists would say that the townsfolk presumed that the twins were joking in spite of their serious demeanor. Indeed, with the exception of one man no one had reasonably expected the twins to go through with their crimes. In a sense, they knew, but they did not know. So are they morally excused from allowing a crime they did not expect to be committed?

These debates occur because either because we haven't figured out the one absolute Truth of life, or that there is no true absolute Truth with which to apply to these cases. And after four thousand years of trying to understand the underlying meaning of life and reason, we still do not know. However, as time goes on without the realization of the True Moral Ideal, the more it seems that everything must be relative. But should that be the case?

While moral relativism is fine for defending people who had absolutely no possible knowledge of something immoral, when and where are its boundaries drawn? When is it an acceptance or an excuse of ignorance? When Nazis brought Jews by the train-load to concentration camps, surely the citizens must have known something – the daily train filled with people that got off but never got back on, the presence of the SS, and a snowfall of ashes must indicate something about what was going on in the concentration camps. Did these people not know, or did they choose not to know?

In summation, both the Moral Ideal and Moral Relativity have strengths and weaknesses. While the Moral Ideal may be impossible to reach and apply, its pursuit is what matters – it refuses to allow ignorance as an excuse because it constantly demands a thirst for knowledge and understanding of the world. And while Moral Relativity justifies people's actions when their capacity to make good judgment is hampered by a lack of understanding of the situation, it also allows itself to be abused by those who choose to remain blissfully ignorant.

Whether the Moral Ideal or Moral Relativity should be considered the one absolute Truth that should be applied in our lives is not a question I can answer as of yet, nor can the academic world without enough introspection. However, I can say that the world we live in is dynamic, not static – it is constantly changing as new technologies are invented and new mindsets approached. New areas of debate will doubtlessly affect what should be considered moral – things like cloning, cyber augmentation, and interactions with alien intelligent species will demand another look at who we are in the world around us. As the world changes, so must Truth and thus, our concept of Morality.

Definitely my favorite song right now. Enjoy.

Overcome the Thousands of Nights
Vocals: Aqua Timez

I want to be loved, but you don’t seem to love me
I wander within that repetition
I found one answer; that even if I’m scared, even if I’m hurt
I can say “I love you” to the person who I love

Do you love me? Or not love me?
As for things like that, it’s already fine either way
No matter how I wish
There are many unchangeable things in this world, right?
That’s right, and because only the fact of my loving you
Is the truth unchangeable by anyone

I want to overcome the thousands of nights and tell it to you
There is something that I must tell you
I want to be loved, but you don’t seem to love me
I wander within that repetition
I found one answer; that even if I’m scared
Even if I’m hurt, I can say “I love you” to the person who I love
It’s scary to turn my feelings into words
But I can say “I love you” to the person who I love

In this broad world, I can’t express the joy of encountering you with words
So we smile, sing about the vividly passing autumn in do-re-mi
Turn our backs on winter, wait for the sunlight streaming through trees in spring
And become reborn anew, so that we can protect someone

On the path we came from and our destination, when we looked back, I’d always have timid eyes
I want to face you, but I can’t be honest
I, who repeated days of not being able to straightforwardly love my partner
And hated being alone on that day
Seemed to love people while unwounded

I’ll overcome the thousands of nights and go meet you now
There is something that I must tell you
I want to be loved, but you don’t seem to love me
I wander within that repetition
I found one answer; that even if I’m scared
Even if I’m hurt, I can say “I love you” to the person who I love
Even if those thoughts aren’t fulfilled, I can say “I love you” to the person who I love
It’s the most wonderful thing in this world

Sen no Yoru o Koete
Vocals: Aqua Timez

Aisaretai   demo   aisou to shinai
Sono kurikaeshi no naka o samayotte
Boku ga mitsuketa kotae wa hitotsu   kowakutatte   kizutsuitatte
Suki na hito ni wa suki tte tsutaeru n da

Anata ga boku o aishiteru ka   aishite nai ka
Nante koto wa   mou docchi de mo ii n da
Donna ni negai nozomou ga
Kono sekai ni wa kaerarenu mono ga   takusan aru darou
Sou   soshite boku ga anata o   aishiteru to iu jijitsu dake wa
Dare ni mo kaerarenu shinjitsu da kara

Sen no yoru o koete   anata ni tsutaetai
Tsutaenakya naranai koto ga aru
Aisaretai   demo   aisou to shinai
Sono kurikaeshi no naka o samayotte
Boku ga mitsuketa kotae wa hitotsu   kowakutatte
Kizutsuitatte   suki na hito ni wa suki tte tsutaeru n da
Kimochi o kotoba ni suru no wa kowai yo
Demo   suki na hito ni wa suki tte tsutaeru n da

Kono hiroi sekai de   meguriau yorokobi o kotoba ja iiarawasenai ne
Dakara boku-tachi wa hohoemi   iro azayaka ni sugiru aki o doremi de utatte
Fuyu o se ni   haru no komorebi o machi
Atarashiku umarekawaru   dareka o mamoru you ni to

Kita michi to ikisaki   furikaereba itsu de mo   okubyou na me o shite ita boku
Mukiaitai   demo   sunao ni narenai
Massugu ni aite o aisenai hibi o
Kurikaeshite wa   hitoribocchi o iyagatta ano hi no boku wa
Mukizu no mama de hito o aisou to shite ita

Sen no yoru o koete   ima anata ni ai ni yukou
Tsutaenakya naranai koto ga aru
Aisaretai   demo   aisou to shinai
Sono kurikaeshi no naka o samayotte
Boku ga mitsuketa kotae wa hitotsu   kowakutatte
Kizutsuitatte   suki na hito ni wa suki tte tsutaeru n da
Sono omoi ga kanawanakutatte   suki na hito ni suki tte tsutaeru
Sore wa kono sekai de ichiban suteki na koto sa