The Instigator
katierachel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jevinigh
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Are some people more significant than others?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Jevinigh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 48857
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

katierachel

Pro

Yes, but not necessarily because of their areas of employment. I judge a person's worth by his morality. For example, someone who is honest with himself and others and strives to earn, produce, achieve, prosper, and respect the rights of others is worth a great deal. People like those savages rioting in Vancouver and the fanatics in the Middle East who go on bloody rampages when someone badmouths Muhammad, however, have no value and are embarrassments to the human race.
Jevinigh

Con

The greatest problem with assigning a greater significance to one person over another is that the question suffers from lack of context for starters. In the event of a titanic like scenario, your choices would be different than perhaps in an apocalyptic scenario but different still in the scenario where say a child runs in front of a car and you have a choice that you may be able to sacrifice your self- either life or serious injury to save the child.

So for a moment lets talk seats in life boats and we will move on to the subjective nature of values in the next round.
Traditionally we are expected to give up seats in life boats to women and children, which in a way may seem logical as we are both biologically and socially programmed to protect our young at all costs. That is after all, how our species continues. How ever when it comes to the Gender paradox, I would contend that it is primarily social programming that causes the Man to be willing to go down with a ship and a woman willing to condemn the man she loves to an icy fate to take the seat on the lifeboat. It is from here on out that the concept of values on one life over another breaks down from a clear and concise manner.

As mentioned above, we are biologically programmed or I guess you can call it hard wired to empathize with children and to be inherently self sacrificing for children, especially our own. This as a biological hard wiring is precise or exact but general as is written in an article in Pycheworld. http://www.planetpsych.com... Touches on biological bonding between biological parents and children. We could in truth go near infinitely deeper in the concept of Biologically programmed behavior, among the major contenders in modern behavioral science is the theory that almost all of our behaviors are primarily biological. How ever that is a topic all on its own.


Past these Biological programs comes societal programs. What is expected of you by a community- what is accepted of you by your culture. And further above that is your own personal filters. What you expect, what you accept and what you personal values are. With this in mind a definite assignment of value on a single person over another is extremely difficult, and hard to make relevant out side of the context of making a decision to which people would be saved and which would go down with the ship.

Since we are talking about seats in life boats, you mentioned in your opening that You rejected utilitarian values on a person's life. ( I.e. What that person does, how useful they are and etc) Well in a seats on life boats scenario, the person who stays on the titanic, no matter how capable they are, no mater how worthy they are, no matter how useful they are to society, that person is going to die and the person who gets that seat on the life boat no matter how incapable he or she is of managing their own lives, no matter how worthy or unworthy he or she is of receiving that seat or how useful they are to society, that person is going to live. In this context of valuing one life over another I would contend that just justifications will inevitably become abstract and primarily emotional combined with basic biological predispositions rather than logical or rational.

Since the value placed on one life or another is inevitably driven by emotion primarily it cannot be defined in a simplistic way nor can it fit with in a set of values. There for the question cannot be answered out side of your frame of reference. No one but you can decide what traits you deem worthy of a seat in a life boat because no one else shares your specific frame of reference although some may agree with it.
Debate Round No. 1
katierachel

Pro

katierachel forfeited this round.
Jevinigh

Con

Pro has forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
katierachel

Pro

katierachel forfeited this round.
Jevinigh

Con

Thank you for the 1 round debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Caharin 3 years ago
Caharin
Con... deep man... deep. pro, give up, you cannot fight this, he opened... with that... imagine what he has in store for the next 3 rounds... GG con wins XD
Posted by katierachel 3 years ago
katierachel
It is a topic for an ethics class project, calm down people. I did not choose the topic.
Posted by ThatOneGuy343 3 years ago
ThatOneGuy343
To some, even debating about how some people are less significant than others is immoral. This is the kind of debate that makes me worry for humanities future.
Posted by ZebramZee 3 years ago
ZebramZee
Everyone has their own idea of what rules comprise morality. Heck, we can't seem to agree what it means for something to be 'immoral'. You cannot prove to someone else that their morality is wrong, only that it is inconsistent. However, if their code is consistent, there is nothing you can do to convince them apart from intimidation through displaying your outrage. Morality probably doesn't even exist.
Posted by tyler3923 3 years ago
tyler3923
The only argument I would make if I were con is that we are all equally insignificant.
Posted by Jabuticaba 3 years ago
Jabuticaba
That was a very rude argument.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
katierachelJevinighTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF