Can a person remain moral when emotional influence is entirely replaced by logical analysis alone?
Debate Rounds (3)
In the first scenario, it is possible for a wholly logical person to be considered moral by humanity's currant standard because a society would last longer if there was a complete absence of an oppressed population, which may someday revolt. It's my conclusion that the logical person would support equal rights and treatment for all so that society would be more efficient, long lasting, and mutually beneficial. The logical person would want those outcomes because those outcomes are generally considered the basic goals of any society, and therefore attempting to get to them is the logical route to take. The real question is, however, is can one be moral if their actions are moral, but their motivations are neutral? That I do not know if I can answer analytically, but my personal belief is yes.
Now, in scenario two, where the entire population is logical, morals would not even be in question because so called moral actions will be taken to ensure the survival of society, and by extension, the human race, because those are the logical goals of life itself as evidenced by our instincts at birth. In general, a logical world would be more moral because their would be no logical reason for selfishness or corruption.
In short, the person or persons would not have morals in reaction to empathy, but in reaction to logical outcomes, but either way, they are still moral behaviors.
Forgive me when I say that I am kind of confused when your scenarios....aren't actually scenarios. However, I do not believe that a person can remain moral when emotion has taken control. This is because when emotion (anger, pride, jealousy, etc.) becomes a factor in decision making, the decision has a very low chance of being moral. This is because your morals are based on your logic, and vice versa. If someone is seeing red, whether they are opposed to violence or not, there is a good chance that they will commit a violent act.
So here's MY scenario.
Someone very close to me is bullied in front of me. Reviled by judgements. My first reaction, through anger, is to defend them. However, I have a moral that when debating, there should not be any major anger. I personally do not use profanity in an argument, but if I were to get angry at the person bullying the person I know, a swear word may be used. This is because my morals are thrown into the wind due to my anger.
A human's emotions are the nemesis of a human's logic. Rash decisions are never made based on logic, unless the person is mentally unstable. Unfortunately, emotions play a large part in the decisions of mankind. This is the cause of many mass killings, hateful crimes, etc.
I am not quite sure how to counter because I think that we just agreed with each other
I guess we did. HA
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Con misunderstood his position in the debate and corroborated Pro's arguments so Pro gets the points! Very interesting debate topic though!
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.