The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Biologist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Actions Are Amoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 745 times Debate No: 46738
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

I will be arguing that actions themselves are all amoral.

amoral - being neither moral or immoral

R1: acceptance
R2: opening arguments
R3: rebuttals
R4: conclusions

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Biologist

Con

I accept, and look forward to, the debate! :)
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

1. Morality Is Mind-Dependent

If two asteroids collide in the depths of space no one would say that such an action is moral or immoral. It simply is. Same thing if a tree falls in a forest. It is simply an action.

Morality is simply the flavor of reaction of a mind to a certain action. If say, a person strangles a child to death, it would only be considered immoral if it was perceived by another person capable of perceiving morality. When people come in contact with actions they label them as either moral or immoral based on the type of emotional reaction they feel to an action. The action itself is simply that, an action.

Morality of an action depends on the action being perceived by a morally capable mind and then judgement of morality being projected onto it.

Take this example...

A morally neutral person is walking down the street and arbitrarily has the chance to steal from a lady on the street. The chance turns up in favor of stealing and this person steals the purse. On the one hand, if no other moral agent perceives this action it appears to be a moment of chance, same as an asteroid collision or falling tree. Such an action is therefore amoral.

Now the only way this action will become "immoral" is if a third party bystander, who does not have knowledge that the thief in the example is morally neutral person motivated by chance, perceives the theft and reacts negatively to the action and projects their own perception of morality onto the action. Thus causing it to be "immoral".

Let us consider a third case in which the third party bystander still does not have knowledge that the thief in the example is morally neutral etc. but this person was involved in a bad relationship with the potential victim in the example and during this relationship the victim stole multiple times from the bystander over the months they were together. In this case, the bystander perceives the theft and applauds the thief and due to their own perceptions attributes the label of moral to the action.

In these three cases the only variable is the mind perceiving the action which shows that the action itself is not moral or immoral but rather they are amoral and are only perceived as anything other than that when morally capable minds project their perceptions onto the action.

Thus, actions are amoral.
Biologist

Con

Biologist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Extend arguments.
Biologist

Con

Biologist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Victory.
Biologist

Con

Biologist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
*amoral, not immoral the first time.
Posted by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Oh no, not this. I'm 14, yet stopped using the most clich" and annoying argument in a moral argument; Morality is subjective. It's so lazy and boring, and fairly easy to refute. Pro has missed one key point here. By saying that things are immoral because morality is subjective and the thing is not, is implying that there is morality outside of the subjectivity of it. There isn't, morality IS subjective. There is no morality outside of comprehension. It's like me saying, "Sight doesn't exist", as sight as we know it is perceived by the brain, so outside of the brain, it doesn't exist. Well no, because sight as we know it is in the brain! This argument, sorry, does not make any sense.

" the action itself is not moral or immoral but rather they are amoral and are only perceived as anything other than that when morally capable minds project their perceptions onto the action."

Morality is through perception, that's how it works!
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Good luck.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
You have two more days...
Posted by Biologist 3 years ago
Biologist
I can no longer continue; There's a virus. It's processing right now and I can't cancel the progress. My comp is about to turn off. Bye
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
ConservativePoliticoBiologistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
ConservativePoliticoBiologistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
ConservativePoliticoBiologistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments went entirely uncontested. Conduct points to Pro for Con's forfeit.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
ConservativePoliticoBiologistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
ConservativePoliticoBiologistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
ConservativePoliticoBiologistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF