The Instigator
rross
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
goldman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

All morality is practical

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,133 times Debate No: 30988
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

rross

Pro

Morality is a system that works within a society to enhance mate selection, childbirth and childrearing, collection and preservation of resources, general social efficiency, cohesion and safety. When morality works, societies survive. Therefore, the morality we see in action today has been successful.

This is so obviously true, it's possible that nobody wants to debate this, but I thought I'd try anyway and see.

morality (noun
): principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour; a
system of values and principles of conduct (1). This debate is only concerned with systems of morality that currently exist or have existed.

practical (adjective
): of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas (2)

(1) http://oxforddictionaries.com...
(2) http://oxforddictionaries.com...

goldman

Con

I accept the debate.
Before begining my arguments let me define the term,``practical`` as follows. It is concerned with voluntary action and ethical decisions. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). And ``ethical`` is defined as follows. Pertaining to or dealing with morals or principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. (http://dictionary.reference.com....)

Pro says in the comment that ``morality exists for practical reasons.`` I believe this is an important point.
If all the people in society recognize the importance of morality in every day life and if they behave according to morality, social cohesion, social efficiency, social equality and safety can be maintained.
However, unfortunately in reality they are difficult to accomplish in many societies.
Therefore, I don`t agree with Pro`s idea that ``all morality is practical.``

I look forward to an enlightening debate.
Debate Round No. 1
rross

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, Goldman.

Often when people talk about morality, they talk about voluntary actions. They assume that moral decisions are entirely conscious and that people weigh up various influences including moral principles, the urge for immediate gratification and other self-interests.

I don't think this is a realistic model of morality. I think humans have a moral instinct in the same way that we have sexual and language instincts. Although we are conscious of them in certain ways, the mass, the mechanism is unconscious. We can fall in love without thinking "this individual has genetic characteristics that would be advantageous to the survival of my genes should we combine them." We can speak fluently without a conscious knowledge of grammar. And we can be driven by morality without really be aware of it or knowing why we act the way we do.

Therefore, I reject Con's redefinition of "practical", in particular the part about "voluntary action" and refer him back to the definition I gave in the introduction.

morality gives societies a competitive advantage

I think the advantages of morality for a society are obvious to everyone. Violence, for example, not only causes immediate physical damage, but it requires everyone to spend time and resources on self-protection which could be more productively spent elsewhere. It also makes people afraid, and fear will cause them to restrict their activities which will also lead to a decrease in production. Much of morality is related to mating, childbirth and raising children, all of which are vital activities for a society. Respect for other people's property, again, means that resources and effort do not need to be spent on hoarding and protection. And so on. Morality is a system that society adopts to guide people to act in ways that are mutually advantageous.

The moral instinct

Human beings have always lived in societies, and the moral instinct has evolved with our species. Like language, it can manifest itself in different ways in different societies, but ALL societies have moral systems and they all share the following four features.

1. Individuals are driven to observe and judge others' behavior against the moral standard, and react accordingly. In this way, society creates a background pressure to compel people to act morally. This force is obvious. We are always being exhorted to pay attention to people's "values, to pay attention to what they do rather than what they say. When someone is observed acting immorally, everyone is interested and the word spreads quickly. Not only that, but we remember. Our brains are very good at storing this kind of information. Thus, it's possible to see someone in the street years later and think, "I don't remember his name or how I know him, but I know he's a cheat and a liar."

2. Conformity to public opinion is an important force for morality, but in order for the system to work most effectively, individuals need to act morally even when they're unobserved. I've seen two mechanisms for this. The first is that people believe they are observed, that there is an all-seeing, invisible observer (God) who watches everything and remembers. The second mechanism is tied up with self-esteem. Humans are very sensitive to the extent to which they are valued by the people around them, but also how they rate against their own mental standard. Often this mental standard is a moral one. So when people observe themselves acting morally, their self-esteem moves up the scale accompanied by a keen sense of pleasure. And if they observe themselves acting immorally, the reverse is true.

People don't need to be particularly conscious, then, of the societal purpose of morality in the context of specific decisions. Of course, most people will be able to defend morality in a theoretical way. They can say, "if we all went around hitting people when we felt like it, the world would be a bad place to live." But when they find themselves in a frustrating, stressful situation, this isn't what's running through their minds. They're more likely to be thinking, "can I get away with hitting him? No. People are watching." or maybe "I don't hit; I'm a good person." External and internal mechanisms for morality respectively.

3. Morality, which acts for society as a whole, is in constant competition with self-interest. Morality still works if it's mostly observed. Therefore, everyone - even the most moral - have lapses into self-indulgence now and then, and we expect that.

4. Morality is an in-group mechanism. Its actions are strongest within our immediate social group, but weaken dramatically over distance. Thus, we would have moral difficulty eating a three course dinner if a starving neighbouring child were watching us through the window, but no trouble at all eating such a dinner with the knowledge of children starving in countries far away. This is another example of how morality is not so much a rational choice as an instinct.

Summary
When I say all morality is practical, I mean that the moral instinct - with its accompanying moral systems - has evolved in humans because it enhances the competitive survival of human societies. It's practical in that sense.



goldman

Con

Let me present my arguments. I imagine that Pro`s summary of 2nd round is the essence of Pro`s arguments.

1. I believe morality of human beings depends on a society where he or she lives and is determined by circumstances which he or she faces. Therefore, I do not support Pro`s main argument that moral instinct has evolved in humans.
If we can recognize the evolution of moral instinct in human history, I believe income disparity between the rich and the poor, mass unempolymen, serious crimes and bullying among children would not take place.

2. We must recognize that some people have moral restraint but others do not. In other words, there are at least two types of human beings in modern society. One type is that he or she behaves for the benefit of a society or a community. They can distinguish that what ia right and what is wrong of their action.
The other type is that he or she always seek for his or her own interests and social status without paying much respect for the welfare of the general public in a society. They do not think seriously their action affect on individuals and a society. I think all human beings take these behaviour according to the situation facing them.

3. Let me show one example. In particular, many U.S. managers are only interested in seeking for the short-term profit making. Their behaviour is self-interest oriented. They have scant symphasy for the workers.
They receive a large amount of income by cutting the wages of their employees or laying them off to survive global competition.
On the other hand, ``Europe places more restraints on executive compensation, so its corporate leaders don`t receive the outsized packages than their American counterparts do.``( Global income inequality : Where the U.S. rank, by Tami Luhby, http://money.cnn.com....)

This case shows that American managers have less morality for the welfare of workers compared with European counterparts. In other words, morality of U.S. managers is not practical and their behaviour is not ethically acceptable. However, behaviour of European managers are practical from the viewpoint of morality and ethics.
The important thing is that different countries and societies have different moral standards and values.

4. Morality is required to controll our actions and our thoughts to create a sound and fair society. (Society of morality, http://www.mit.edu...) However, in reality this is difficult to accomplish. The reason is that we are social animals and we have different values and way of thinking.
From above arguments, I believe all morality is not practical.
Debate Round No. 2
rross

Pro

Con said: "I do not support Pro`s main argument that moral instinct has evolved in humans."

Not only are the moral instincts of empathy, reciprocity and fairness ubiquitous in the human species, they have also been shown over and over throughout the primate order (1-3), which is a clear indication that morality has an instinctive basis.

Con points to wealth inequality and crime as proof that the moral instinct does not exist. However, as I said in the previous round, morality is an in-group mechanism, which means that it works for groups to protect themselves in preference to outsiders. I also explained that morality is in constant conflict with, and regularly loses out to self-interest. The existence of crimes does not disprove morality. Indeed, the fact that we recognize them as crimes is evidence of our judgmental, moral perspective. Finally, like language and sexual instinct, morality takes time to develop. Children are still learning these behaviors which is why childhood bullying can seem more random and extreme than the behavior we expect from adults.

Con said:
"We must recognize that some people have moral restraint but others do not."

This is true. In the same way that people have language disorders (4) or sexual disorders (5), unfortunately, others have disorders of socialization and ethical functioning. This is called antisocial personality disorder according to the DSM5, and is characterized by (6):


"Significant impairments inpersonality functioning manifest by:

1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):

a. Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived frompersonal gain, power, or pleasure.

b. Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.

AND

2. Impairments ininterpersonal functioning (a or b):



a. Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.

b. Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others."

The fact that we can recognize lack of moral functioning as a mental disorder only illustrates how pervasive and necessary morality is otherwise.


Con said: "The important thing is that different countries and societies have different moral standards and values."

This is true. Moral systems have seemlingly limitless variations in the same way that language and cultural systems do. However, in the same way that language systems share features (spoken sounds, linking sounds to concepts, systems of address etc.) so do moral systems.

Con said: "...American managers have less morality for the welfare of workers compared with European counterparts. In other words, morality of U.S. managers is not practical and their behaviour is not ethically acceptable. However, behaviour of European managers are practical from the viewpoint of morality and ethics."

For the sake of argument, I will accept Con's example of executive compensation in the US and Europe as true in its entirety.

Con argues that because European executives' pay is restricted by legislation, these executives are more moral than their American counterparts who suffer from no such restrictions.

I suppose this is true in a sense. For example, a murderer is more guilty than someone who would like to commit murder but is physically prevented from doing so.

However, the morality of US executives is very practical. Keep in mind that in the US, as elsewhere, rich people usually only socialize with other rich people. As I said, morality functions within the social group. Therefore, rich people are moral towards their peers. Short term profits, shifting factories off-shore and all the rest of it benefits the people in their social group, no doubt, and is applauded there. The responsibility to workers and the poor, outside the group, is far less compelling. As I said last round, this is the nature of morality.

In Europe, any legislation to restrict income was almost certainly fought for, not by the rich, but by the middle and working classes and the left-wing. Their morality is also practical. They believe in equality, in caring for the vulnerable and reducing hardship for the poor. When acted on, these values create a stable society.

Summary
Although Con has shown that individual and societal variation in morality exists, he has failed to show that morality isn't practical. This is because it has evolved in primates, including humans, because of the advantages it brings to societies. Its widespread existence is proof of its practical value.



(1) http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com...
(3) http://www.nature.com...
(4) http://apps.who.int...

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(6) http://www.dsm5.org...
goldman

Con

In this round I try to rebutt the arguments made by Pro in Round 3.

1. Pro said: ``Not only are the moral instincts of empathy, reciprocity and fairness ubiquitous in the human species, they have also been shown over and over throught the primate order.`` And ``morality is an in-group mechanism, which means that it works for groups to protect themselves in preference to outsiders.``
I believe that these arguments are partly true. In particular, ``morality is an in-group mechanism.``

For example, people in many African countries pay respect for traditional way of life, religion and community rules.
They place higher value on their own morality. These indigenous people are less addicted to modern civilized life.
They lead a life according to the morality of their own in the age of globalization.
Therefore, we can say that their morality is practical. However, as I said in Round 2, the developed countries like the U.S. and Europe have different moral standards and values. Morality shoud be practical to make a society safety, pleasant and peaceful place to live in.
However, unfortunately, these days the importance and value of the morality in those countries are being lost.
So the situation which morality is not practical is emerging. People do not pay much attention to the importance and significance of moral values in schools, offices, public places and their communities.
This triggers cruel crimes, bullying and violence not only among younger genaration but among older counterparts.
Therfore, a law is necessary to deal with illegal actions taken by them and to cope with social disorder that we encounter.

2. The role of law in society.
We must recognize that morality can not make a sound, fair and safer society. Therefore, we must establish a law.
In this case we must keep in mind the relationship between morality and law.
The important thing is that ``morality is absolutely determined by the rules and laws established by authority.
Maintaining law and order is more important than selfish desires.``(Society of Morality, http://www.mit.edu...)

It is said that capital exploits workers in a capitalist society. However, in Germany equality of capital and workers is well maintained. This contributes to the stability of economy and society. The reason is that managers in the country manages and administers their employees not by the morality but by the co-determination law.
The law plays an important role as a moral restraint or a social tool to maintain moral practicality among German managers.
``Co-determination `` is a ``concept for employee consultation and participation in company decisions at both establishment and company/group level within private sector companies.``(Co-determination in Germany-A Beginners`Guide, http://www.boeckler.de...)

We must try to build a civilized society based on the morality and law.
Debate Round No. 3
rross

Pro

This debate could easily have ground down into wrangling about the definition of "morality" and "practical". I'm so glad it didn't. Many thanks to my opponent for allowing the discussion to stay open, even if it has meant that we are using those words in different ways. It's more interesting like that.

Good laws are a result of morality
Con argues that morality isn't effective enough to be practical. He says, "We must recognize that morality cannot make a sound, fair and safer society. Therefore, we must establish a law." However, in the same way that cozy, feathered nests are a result of birds' instinct to protect their eggs, laws are a result of the human moral instinct. In summary:

1. Often, when people talk of morality, they think mainly about an individual's control over her own behavior. But is more than that, of course. It also involves an unceasing interest in the moral behavior of other people. In the same way as a mother is constantly fretting about her babies, or a domestic cat obsesses about the mouse under the fridge, our moral instinct drives us to be constantly alert, constantly worried about others' conformity to moral standards.

Take this debate, for example. My opponent is in Japan; I am in Australia. Neither one of us is in a position to restrict executive pay in the US, nor are we financially affected by the situation. Nevertheless, it disturbs us. We can rationalize our concern, of course. The appalling state of public education in the US! The lack of universal health care! It doesn't matter that the suffering poor are no more than a blurry, moral backdrop and that we can't articulate the link to executive pay exactly. The important thing is our anger at those immoral, grabby, rich executives. This is our moral instinct in action.

2. The moral instinct is more powerful in smaller societies. Con has argued that "traditional" African societies are a sort of pure, moral utopia, unsullied by the evil of globalization and Western "progress". No evidence for this. Sounds very like romantic racism which, although better than the violent, genocidal kind (in my opinion) is still distracting.

I agree with Con's point about moral strength in smaller discrete societies. We have all felt the sort of moral freedom that comes when we're in a foreign country where nobody knows us. We have all felt stifled and morally oppressed when in a society where too many people know us. The moral instinct developed during a history of small groups (1).

Nowadays, our species has progressed so that we live in societies of millions of people. We can't count on knowing and sizing up every other person in the society. We need other structures in place, and the sophistication of our laws and our methods of monitoring each other have progressed accordingly.

3. The unceasing, ubiquitous moral instinct has, over generations, driven people to create all kinds of laws. One example is the co-determination laws in Germany that Con provided (2). Another is the freedom of speech and religion laws in the US. The moral instinct has found expression through legislation. How practical morality is!

Morality and the individual
In round 2, I said that belief in God or morality-linked self-esteem are mechanisms of morality. However now, after brooding on it, I think of them, rather, as justifications for a difficult-to-explain compulsion.

If we define ourselves (and we do) as discrete units, then our instinct to behave morally even when unobserved is irrational. God and our pride in our moral selves is rationalizing it. It's been consistently observed in psychology that our behavior drives our attitudes, not the other way around (3). This is another example of it.

Morality is universal
Morality has a small radius in that we care most about and are most moral towards people we know, who are near us and who we identify as being like ourselves. However, the moral instinct is universal. It's true that some legislative structures are superior to others, and that some societies are living under greater resource pressure than others, and some societies are more stable than others. But to claim, as Con does, that certain nationalities or groups have more morality than others is very much a subjective assessment. Humans are not the only primates to feature moral behavior. It's an instinct that we all possess but which, like language, finds expression in a wide variety of ways.

Morality is practical

Parents should be responsible for their children. We shouldn't hurt other people. We should take care of the sick. We should share resources and help each other. We should keep our word and honor our agreements. These are our moral instincts. They have helped us form strong societies and therefore survive in a competitive, dangerous world. They have found expression in legislation. Even though the type of societies we live in nowadays are very different from societies of the past, our moral instinct is still stong. It is essential to our species because it is so, so practical.

(1) "Villages of 100 or more people were established as head-quarters, from which people radiated on hunting and collecting trips." http://www.des.ucdavis.edu...
(2) http://www.boeckler.de...
(3) http://books.google.com.au...

goldman

Con

I thank Pro for your good manner in this debate. In 4th round of Pro`s arguments, they are divided into four parts.
I try to rebutt and show my opinion for them.

1. Good laws are a result of morality. : In highly industrial society many people are living with different social values, way of thinking. Some people have moral restraint but others do not. Therefore, good laws are required to regulate their behaviour. On the other hand, in some Islamic countries Isram plays an important role in society and people`s lives. In those countries morality and religion are closely linked. Viewing from a different angle, they are regarded as laws to manage and controll their life and economic activities.
I believe some people lack in morality and take irrational, unreasonable behaviour. Therefore, good laws must be established. I think laws are social instruments to keep morality not a result of morality.
They aim for dealing with bad, unsocial and unethical human behaviour in most of the highly democratic countries.

It is important for us to distinguish between law and morality.
Souraw Mandel argues about this problem. `` The great jurist asserts that force is necessary to controll human behaviour because humanity as a whole is not governed by reason. If every one thinks reasonably and acts rationally there is no need of binding one`s behaviour. But the experiences in history do not provide clear evidence of such rational behaviour and so the idea of law has developed on the assumption that it is necessary to compel the behaviour of individuals in a particular direction to achieve certain specific ends. Justice and conscience seem to be personal and individualistic.``( Law and Morality, www.legalserviceindia.com)

2. Morality and the individual : In this section Pro said: ``Our instinct to behave morally even when unobserved is irrational. God and our pride in our moral selves is rationalizing it.``
I believe that if he or she is a devout believer in a religion, he or she behaves morally and rationally according to the idea of religion. In my opinion this does not apply for all people.

3. Morality is universal: I agree with Pro`s arguments in this section.
The important thing is that in a small society or community morality is functioning well among close friends or family members.

4. Morality is practical: Pro said: ``Even though the type of societies we live in nowadays are very different from societies of the past, our moral instinct is still strong.``
It is true that our moral instinct is still strong in the relationship between friends or among family members.
However, unfortunately, we must recognize that the rich people do not care of the poor or the unemployed.
The important thing is that some people have moral instinct but others do not.
Therfore, I believe whether moral instinct is practical or not depends on a situation which a person faces and a place or a country where he or she lives.

From my arguments and rebuttals, I think that all morality is not practical.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
CONCLUSION

a) I found this debate to be exceptionally difficult to judge. The standard of what exactly constituted morality changed often on both sides throughout the debate, making it exceptionally difficult to determine whether or not one side thought morality was practical.

b) I was originally going to award PRO S&G, until PRO mentioned that she was from Australia, and CON from Japan. At this point, I gave CON some leeway since English is obviously PRO's native language, whereas the same is not true for CON.

c) PRO IMHO almost lost the debate when she made the argument about how "rich people usually only socialize with other rich people", especially when later she remarks that morality is universal. All CON had to do was to point out how such segregation is itself impractical to win this debate, but he never to my knowledge directly did this.

d) PRO's resolution was exceptionally difficult to defend - that ALL morality is practical. I did not think she met full BoP on this, as it is an exceptionally high BoP to prove anything about ALL of morality. Regardless, I don't think CON negated the resolution either, as is evident by how much he agreed with PRO in the final round.

e) Conduct was exceptional on both sides.

f) I did not find sources to be significant in how I judged this debate.

Therefore, tie. Interesting read/discussion, although not a very good debate, IMHO. There was too much of a sense of discovery in this debate, as opposed to two side arguing over a resolution.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
10) PRO: "In round 2, I said that belief in God or morality-linked self-esteem are mechanisms of morality. However now, after brooding on it, I think of them, rather, as justifications for a difficult-to-explain compulsion. "

"If we define ourselves (and we do) as discrete units, then our instinct to behave morally even when unobserved is irrational. "

IMHO, it is here that PRO arrives at an epiphany, that there is an individual morality, and a communal morality. This is my second reading of this debate, and on my first reading, I found the total lack of acknowledgement of an individual morality to be...off putting.

11) CON states that "It is important for us to distinguish between law and morality." Here he differentiates between the morality utilized by both sides in the debate up to this point, and a more objective form of morality, a "true sense of right and wrong", so to speak. I've interpreted ALL of the arguments up to this point as debating over a subjective morality, thus while this line of thinking is interesting, it does not further CON's case, that "not ALL morality is practical".

12) CON comes very close to winning the debate with this statement: "However, unfortunately, we must recognize that the rich people do not care of the poor or the unemployed." This statement would directly refute the notion that "segregation is practical". However, he does not argue WHY such inequality is impractical.

(conclusion next)
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
5) (cont) Also, what CON points out as "immoral" American CEOs is really just CEOs that are going against the foundations of our legal system, which talks at length about concepts like "equal opportunity".

Framing communal morality under such a legal standard then places PRO's rebuttal, that "rich people usually only socialize with other rich people", into a statement that "segregation is practical", segregation in this sense being a division between classes. Regardless, CON does not argue from this perspective.

7) CON states morality via legislation quite clearly in round #3: "morality is absolutely determined by the rules and laws established by authority." Indeed law = communal morality. However, this does nothing to support his position, that "not all morality is practical". He would have to prove that there are impractical laws in order to do so.

8) PRO: "This debate could easily have ground down into wrangling about the definition of "morality" and "practical". I'm so glad it didn't. Many thanks to my opponent for allowing the discussion to stay open, even if it has meant that we are using those words in different ways. " lol, it has also made this debate exceptionally difficult to judge.

9) PRO: "We have all felt the sort of moral freedom that comes when we're in a foreign country where nobody knows us. We have all felt stifled and morally oppressed when in a society where too many people know us. " IMHO this is because a foreigner is ignorant of the laws of a foreign country, thus freeing a foreigner from communal morality.

(cont)
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Well, like I repeatedly stated in my own debate on this topic, morality is extremely difficult to judge.

1) I found that much of what PRO argued strayed off course from her definition of morality. For example, I do not understand how her round #2 point #3, that "Morality, which acts for society as a whole, is in constant competition with self-interest"...corroborates with her round #1 definition of morality. What if self-interest itself was inherently moral? After all, morality is but "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour". Morality need not have any social motivation.

2) This becomes even more problematic when PRO connects immorality to psychological dysfunction, i.e. "the fact that we can recognize lack of moral functioning as a mental disorder..." After all, according to PRO's round #1 definition of morality, morality need not have any social motivation...it is possible that someone that seems to lack moral functioning to others may still have a viable sense of morality within their own perspectives and experiences.

3) This kind of reasoning then throws CON's case about executive compensation out the window. If self-interest is a moral interest, then CEOs would want to pay themselves to the maximum extent possible, and European CEOs would be immoral in comparison to their greedy American brethren.

4) This also throws out PRO's argument that "morality functions within the social group". It need not, according to the round #1 definition of morality.

5) Working within both PRO and CON's communal sense of morality, I fail to see CON's following point substantiated: "However, unfortunately, these days the importance and value of the morality in those countries are being lost." How so?

The answer IMHO is legality. Legality is this communal sense of morality that both PRO and CON are referring to. CON's argument above is therefore implicitly implying a relatively lawless society.

(cont).
Posted by joch43 3 years ago
joch43
Please Comment on this debate. Thank you. http://www.debate.org... . Please tell me and my opponents mistakes so i can learn more
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@zaradi: "wrich, do you deny that laws legislating morality commits the is/ought fallacy?"

See, this all comes down to how you define morality. You seem to think that morality is something divorced from legislation. However, any definition of morality tends to actually BE the definition of legislation. Case in point is the definition utilized in this debate:

morality (noun): principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour; a system of values and principles of conduct

These are what we would commonly call "laws". Laws do not write down these distinctions...they ARE the distinctions. They ARE the principles. They ARE the system of values.
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
I'm assuming your second reference is this:

http://www.mit.edu...
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
Goldman's first reference round 2 (sorry, just saving it for my own reference and thought may as well have it public):
http://money.cnn.com...
Posted by rross 3 years ago
rross
Daktoria, how is my argument racist? I honestly don't see it.
Posted by MRReadme 3 years ago
MRReadme
We have the potential to live in peace or destroy ourselves.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
rrossgoldmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting discussion, but not a very good debate. See comments.
Vote Placed by Nimbus328 3 years ago
Nimbus328
rrossgoldmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate! Very enlightening, although a clearer differentiation between types of morality would have been helpful. I have no idea who won!