The Instigator
Your_Conscience
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
ChickieBobbie
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does the End justify the Means?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Your_Conscience
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 56011
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Your_Conscience

Pro

Acceptance round.
I will be arguing that the ends do justify the means.
ChickieBobbie

Con

When one has an end and is doing something in order that the end is fulfilled then it is important to be consistent with your end, if you steal from a merchant so that you may feed a poor village it is not just, you feed the village for good and good is absolute you can not be evil then good then you are not truly good , first rule of logic A is A, A is not B. While you did good in the end you did not do good meanwhile therefore you are not good are the end is not purely good.
Debate Round No. 1
Your_Conscience

Pro

Now that I have a response, I realize perhaps I should have worded it better.

Anyways, the Con does make a rather..... complicated logical statement, but he is assuming justification means pure good. Justification only means that the good outweighs the bad.

Maybe the opponent can make another one of his, "logical flurries" again for us.
ChickieBobbie

Con

My opponent forgets that in order to outweigh something you must first have value, if the goodness of something is not pure then it does not have value as pure. If your actions are for good but you do not do then with good then it is not good, if you sacrifice a child in the short term so that all children in the future may live happily later then it is not just or all children are not happy.
Debate Round No. 2
Your_Conscience

Pro

Your argument requires some further explanation, which doesn't seem to be possible, due to the small amount of space we have. The way the Con explains this seems to not relate to the question at hand at all. Maybe it's my own inability to understand, or it could be the Con is not being clear enough. I'm leaning more forward the second option, partly to preserve some of my dignity.
ChickieBobbie

Con

Let me put this clearly for you PRO, in order to weigh something it must have weight , this is logical.
Something can only have weight as itself If it is made up of itself. I would not wear all my hockey gear and then weigh myself and count that as my natural weight. I would not be evil "for" a good cause and count that as good because that would not "weigh in " as good. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Debate Round No. 3
Your_Conscience

Pro

I fail to understand how this relates to the matter at hand. Is it because you're trying to show that all actions must either be truly good, or truly bad? All actions can be justified, even if it is subjective, since the morals and ethics of a society at a certain time period are, more or less, accepted. If the end result of a procedure provides the ultimate good for people, release from evil, then shouldn't evil be allowed to be used to achieve such a noble goal?
ChickieBobbie

Con

For some reason my opponent can not understand my point but to review and maybe clarify,
When one has a noble goal for a good thing then your are trying to be good ( someone who does a good action is a good doer) then they can not be unpure because then they cannot be good fully. There may be truth in their deed but it wouldn't truly be good. And in a relative world then this argument would no matter, good is whatever you want it to be it's just a label.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
Pro did not read the arguments of opponent fully. Concerning the voter.....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
Your_ConscienceChickieBobbieTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: You can't use 3 rounds to explain what you meant in the first.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
Your_ConscienceChickieBobbieTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: This is hardly a debate at all. Con brought up a few points that were off topic, and Pro has failed to meet the burden of proof sufficiently. Therefore I will only judge conduct and spelling and grammar. Con loses points in conduct because Pro specifically said that first round was for acceptance, yet Con proceeded to present an argument in the acceptance round. Con also committed several noticeable grammar mistake. Con's entire argument in round one consisted of 2 run-on sentences.