A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system
Debate Rounds (4)
Thank you for accepting this debate.
Morality has always had a purpose, and that is collective and/or individual benefit. Humans, being social animals and in living groups, developed desirable conduct for benefit. Morality is meant to foster order within or between groups and create a mutual perception of desirable conduct between persons, or in religious context act as instructed by a god, deity, prophet, or religious body to garner favour from that god or deity. Murder is seen as evil because it takes away a person, and a person is valuable in emotional, economic, and social ways. The murder somewhat hurts themselves, as they absolve themselves of a potential ally, friend or benefactor, and will be perceived as violent and undesirable by fellow humans. Murder is prohibited in most religions, and to followers following that moral decree will be beneficial to them in the fact that they are following divine commands and following them will benefit them spiritually and possibly in the afterlife if that is in their religious dogma.
I cannot really see the relation between this and pragmatism. If people accept a purpose to morality, I see no reason for them to perhaps kill to provide food for their families, or destroy nations to achieve world peace.
I await elaboration on your statement.
This means that what is moral is determined by whether or not it improves progress towards this goal.
As such, what is moral is being determined by the results of an action, which is what an ends-based system advocates.
To clarify for my opponent. An ends-based system is not necessarily a pragmatic one, though the most common one, utilitarianism, is.
While I accept the assertion that the purpose of morality is to benefit humanity, I disagree that this lends itself to the creation of immutable rules. This is because there are occasions, when following the most common of these rules, when following the rule actually violates the intent of the rule itself.
For example, the intent of a rule against killing (humans) exists to prevent the death of humans, generally seen as a bad thing. However, when following this prohibition, if refusing to kill actually leads to more death, than that contradicts the original purpose of the rule against killing.
As such, it makes far more sense to judge actions by their ends, when a purpose to morality exists, then it does to create unbreakable moral rules.
The situations where morality is taken into account vary too much for an absolute moral system. Morality has to be relative. An ends based system is only really prevalent when acting against an original breach of morality, and usually only when there is NO OTHER SOLUTION then breaching morality. In this case, using immoral means becomes moral. For example, there is a man absolutely certain to kill, I will have to kill him to achieve the ends of benefiting people, his possible victims. A case like this is the only case in where two "wrongs" in fact do make a "right".
Pursuing moral means will result in more benefit. A man is going to kill, I use peaceful negotiation to cease his homicidal plans, and bring about peace. I have used moral means, and achieved moral ends. No one has died, and this is obviously more beneficial than having to kill the man. This is the significantly more common process. When dealing with a problem like a homicidal maniac, moral means are always in priority, and the purpose of benefit is always in mind. Moral means result in more moral ends, therefore greater benefit, the original purpose of morality.
As such, my opponent has never actually refuted my argument, but simply stated that the use of moral means to accomplish moral ends produces greater benefit. This is already encompassed by the definition of an ends-based moral system. A moral means is by definition one which produces moral ends.
There has been no refutation of my logic that the existence of a purpose of morality, in this debate the benefit of mankind, leads naturally to an ends-based moral system.
The subject of debate and the idea that you support is "A purpose to morality would imply the correctness of an ends-based moral system".
1. A foundation upon which something rests.
2. The chief constituent; the fundamental ingredient
3. The fundamental principle.
The ENDS being the foundation or chief constituent, it obviously has to be the most important. In order for a moral system to be ends-based, the ENDS hold the greatest value, and are more important than the MEANS.
I am saying that the purpose of morality in mind, ENDS does not not hold greater value then MEANS, as a ends-based moral system would suggest.
No, a moral means is not by definition one which produces moral ends.
mor�al (m�rl, mr-)
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
A moral means is, by definition, a means that follows morality, right and wrong, proper conduct, arises from conscience, etc.
There would be no refutation only if your definition of an ends-based moral system was the correct one. I have refuted the statement that the benefit of mankind, leads naturally to an ends-based moral system.
My opponent assumes that the ends are separate from the means. As I explained in the last round, "A moral means is by definition one which produces moral ends.". When the benefit from a given action, the harms or benefits, as well as the opportunity cost of the means are taken into account. As such, the ends of a given action include the means used. Given that this is true, the means cannot be said to be of equal importance as the ends.
Furthermore, even if my opponent has successfully argued that the in morality, the means ought be of equal importance to the ends, this by no means refutes the claim of the Pro. This debate is not about whether an ends-based system is the best or most moral, but simply one that a purpose of morality would lead us to accept.
As has not been refuted, the mere fact that if there is a goal of morality, a moral action is one which advances that goal. This is inherently an evaluation of morality which focuses on what an action causes, not what the action itself is, and as such, is a moral system which evaluates the ends without assuming an inherent morality to the means.
giantrobot11 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.