The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Can a person remain moral when emotional influence is entirely replaced by logical analysis alone?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 409 times Debate No: 63596
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




If we make the assumption, and I acknowledge it is an assumption, as this is a somewhat hypothetical scenario, that an entirely logical being would want society to run as efficiently and as widely beneficial as possible, then this statement is true. However, the situation must be examined from two angles; One, the logical person living in the world we live in now, exactly as it is, and two, the logical person living in a world full of nothing but other fully logical people.
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.

In conclusion

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.
Debate Round No. 1


I apologize if i was not clear. Scenario one would be placing an entirely logical person in an emotional world, and two would be placing them in a logical world.

I am not quite sure how to counter because I think that we just agreed with each other


I guess we did. HA
Debate Round No. 2


Well this is weird we have nothing to debate now. Well at least it was interesting. Have a nice day/night depending on whatever time it is where you are.


Sorry! :P
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by EliasL 2 years ago
You should remove this.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Oi! This is my kind of debate. I wish it would have been expended and improved upon. Also, Republic, you voted for the wrong person =d, you said you'd vote Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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!