The Instigator
Daktoria
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Chaomage6
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Deontological Egoism Is Preferable to Naive Altruism

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,676 times Debate No: 32959
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Daktoria

Pro

This debate is over whether those who acknowledge right from wrong personalities live a preferable lifestyle compared to those who only acknowledge right personalities.

To be clear, this debate takes a universal perspective on "right" and "wrong". The particular definition of these concepts is not relevant, and for all intents and purposes, it could be (bizarrely) argued that "right" equals believing no clear difference between right and wrong while "wrong" equals believing in a clear difference between right and wrong.

The first position will be referred to as "deontological egoism" and "DE" on the basis of having a duty towards thoughtfulness, and recognizing how thoughtfulness can be exercised for better or worse. Likewise, those who are rightfully thoughtful should understand that wrongfully thoughtful people exist, but right from wrong personalities cannot be filtered in advance of experience, so social interactions need to be gradual yet assertive in order to discover which is which without becoming vulnerable. This is also egoist on the basis of understanding that no rightfully thoughtful person is entitled to compel any other rightfully thoughtful person to assume the risk of encountering wrongfully thoughtful people. Each ego is entitled to the security and liberty of its own choices.

The second position will be referred to as "naive altruism" and "NA" on the basis of rightfully thoughtful personalities deserving the benefit of the doubt. People should be universally helpful, and those who are unwilling to be helpful should be compelled by others to be helpful. This includes assuming the risk of encountering wrongfully thoughtful personalities because no rightfully thoughtful person deserves to be forsakened. Any rightful person who forsakens another is ungrateful and not looking out for the greater good of society. Wrongfully thoughtful personalities must be endured for the sake of other rightful personalities. It might even be argued that wrongfully thoughtful personalities can be reformed, so rightfully thoughtful personalities must try to reform them.

The preference of DE to NA comes from understanding the sustainability and purpose of rightfully thoughtful personalities. DE is a self-respecting and self-preserving lifestyle that takes the time, energy, and attention to reliably associate with others instead of rushing into things. NA, on the other hand, is asking for trouble, and is only sustainable on a socially Darwinist basis. Only those who can endure encountering wrongfully thoughtful personalities can afford to be universally helpful. Those who lack endurance will become exploited and hurt.
Chaomage6

Con

I stand in firm negation of the resolution that those who acknowledge right from wrong (DE) live a preferable lifestyle compared to those who only acknowledge right personalities (NA).

NA, on both a individual and societal level, will lead to more preferable lifestyles. It is often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Such is preference and lifestyle, with nothing but one's own warped view of the world saying what is and what is not preferable. Preferable, for purposes of debate, shall be defined as "having a higher standpoint in lifestyle than all others as seen by the individual." In a truly NA state, every act that brings either suffering or punishment to one's self is seen as selfless forebearance. Any acts agains a true NA will bring about a moral high ground in the eyes of the NA, giving them a reason to stay high even when brought low. NA standpoints also bring about more open and trusting relationships.

DE, on the other hand, is, if in a round-about way, more likely to bring misery back around than NA. If you acknowledge that others may harbour feelings of distrust. This leads to more closed intrapersonal relationships that are prevented from complete openess by the fact that you believe that others are able to be something other than innately kind. The mere acknowledgement of wrongfully thoughtful personalities means that you observe the possibility of everyone being "bad" or opposed to you in some way. If ever wronged, DE personalities can feel tricked, helpless and unsatisfied by their situation and overall lifestyle, seeing their own faults.
Debate Round No. 1
Daktoria

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

To be clear, my opponent's ignoring two main points. One, DE involves gradual social interactions, and two, NA doesn't understand sustainability. Yes, a DE acknowledges the possibility of others being untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean they necessarily are. Likewise, while it might be true that NA is willing to endure suffering, that doesn't mean it can or should. My opponent also claims that DE is more likely to bring about misery. Again, this ignores the difference between possibilities and necessities. Merely acknowledging the possibility of people being wrongfully thoughtful does not mean they necessarily are. If anything, leaping to the conclusion that people are necessarily rightfully thoughtful will more likely bring about misery because it takes unmitigated risk. Wrongfully thoughtful people exist, and these people do not choose to change their attitudes. NA fails to account for these people. It also forces others to assume the risk of encountering them rather than acknowledging the implicit game of right from wrong not being clear in advance of experience.

For example, let us consider someone who's dating to find an intimate relationship. Should this person be a deontological egoist in understanding we can't judge people's character in advance of experience, or should someone be a naive altruist who leaps to pursue intimate conclusions as quickly and as intensely as possible? DE suggests that a dater takes one's time in gradually getting to know someone's personality in order to avoid encountering reckless predators with no sophistication. NA, on the other hand, would suggest elevating a relationship before time is taken to know someone's sophistication. This can lead to dependent abuse where an NA might enter a relationship in order to fix someone only for someone to turn around and ruin an NA's life. DE, on the other hand, expects maturity such that people enter a relationship in order to help each other, not to have a one-sided arrangement.

This naivete even exposes others in society to assuming the risk of encountering wrongful thoughtfulness because it sustains wrongfulness into the future. Wrongfully thoughtful personalities get into the habit of abusing altruists and expecting altruistic behavior such that EVERYONE becomes compelled to assume the risk of encountering the wrongful. Even in the case of an NA encountering a DE on a date, the NA forces the DE to assume the risk of an all or nothing scenario, failing to take the time of getting to know someone's personality. Wrongfully thoughtful personalities can also impose as naive altruists in order to appear rightful only to turn out not to be.

Lastly, naive altruism becomes self-destructive. While an NA might indeed prefer to be selfless, that selflessness will not be sustained once it is destroyed. This even exists among naive altruists as a group where they expose themselves together to wrongfully thoughtful personalities.
Chaomage6

Con

Chaomage6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Daktoria

Pro

Daktoria forfeited this round.
Chaomage6

Con

Chaomage6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Daktoria

Pro

Daktoria forfeited this round.
Chaomage6

Con

Chaomage6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Daktoria

Pro

Daktoria forfeited this round.
Chaomage6

Con

Chaomage6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.