The Instigator
creedhunt
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Deontology is not a justified normative ethical system

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 2 votes the winner is...
creedhunt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 60553
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

creedhunt

Pro

Hello all.

I'm of the opinion that Deontology, the normative ethical system that disregards the moral importance of consequences, is not a justified position. Because I cannot be aware of my opponent's supposed justification until they have presented it, I will allow Con to make a case in the first round.
Aerogant

Con

We were born without morals - I'm sure we can live without them for a time. Not having morals doesn't mean you will resort to man-slaughter - it depends on what a person does in the darkness that truly reflects their character with or without morals!

Besides, there are men with "morals" that kill. Therefore, morals are mutual.
Debate Round No. 1
creedhunt

Pro

Thank you con.

I will provide a quick rebuttal of my opponent's case, and then I will provide some arguments in my favour.

Firstly, since deontology depends on the existence of objective morality, my opponent's doubt of this integral aspect does not make the resolution "Deontology is not a justified normative ethical system" false.
Secondly, if my opponent truly believes that existing without morals is acceptable if manslaughter is not a result, then I'm afraid that's conceding to the ideas of consequentialism, which directly oppose deontology.
I have to wonder if my opponent was aware of the fact that they are on the Con side of this debate.

"In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare." [1]

A simple way of calling out the flaws in this this argument would be to look at what we call actions. A deontologist might say, for example that lying is an unjustifiable action, even if it leads to saving lives. They might also argue, that it is an unjustifiable act to knowingly kill a person. These two ideas cannot coexist, and I will explain why.

If we look at any act, we can see that the consequences that follow are always grouped with the act, to some extent or another. For example, saying the words "I don't know where Brian is" is not in and of itself lying; saying "I don't know where Brian is" in order to deceive someone is. Likewise, refusing to lie is not in and of itself killing a person; refusing to lie knowing that it will result in someone's death is.

Besides that, any world with less goodness is worse than a world with more goodness. If an act leads to more goodness than another act or inaction, then the world is worse.

Good luck, Con.

[1] http://www.britannica.com...
Aerogant

Con

Morals are based on man-made rules which are solely based on perception. You cannot argue morality objectively because morality is equivalent to personal interests not practical interference. This is not to say that subjectivity is all a human is capable of, no - it's arguing what is otherwise detrimentally ingrained within a person's mind that results in futility. You cannot say "what you do is right/wrong" - you have to use contrasts and consequences to reflect their actions and their results.

Understand?
Debate Round No. 2
creedhunt

Pro

*sigh*

In the interest of winning this debate, I will continue with a serious response.

Con has very simply conceded by claiming that morality is defined by consequences.

*drops the metaphorical mic*
Aerogant

Con

Morality is defined by perception which can or cannot lead to consequences, therefore upgrade your reading comprehension.

Morality can be objective, but morality in its intrinsic value will forever be limited to perception. That's why it's best to not pick and choose what is right and wrong, but based right and wrong on the results of your actions - not what makes you feel "right".
Debate Round No. 3
creedhunt

Pro

*longer sigh*

My opponent continues to concede by claiming that right and wrong are based upon the results of actions. My opponent has provided no justification for the idea that certain actions are unjustifiable by consequences/results.

I strongly urge the floor to side with Pro.
Aerogant

Con

Consequences will always follow man, for all things man does, thinks and creates is based on subatomic particles and these subatomic particles are everything a psychologists needs to break down a man's intentions.

Humans are not complex in the least.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
FREE?

FREE?

NOTHING IS FREE IN THIS WORLD BAD SANTA!

*no caps here*
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dang, lol, aerogant gives yet another free victory
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
creedhuntAerogantTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: con done nada as usual
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
creedhuntAerogantTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Better conduct, arguments, and sources.