The Instigator
Schopenhauer
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
wasittoya
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Honor is more important than morals

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...
Schopenhauer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 43847
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Schopenhauer

Pro

I will be arguing than honors value exceeds that of morals. No trolling, sources will only need to be cites for historical evidence that is not common knowledge. First round is for acceptance, meaning you agree with the above terms. Thank you in advance for accepting this debate.
wasittoya

Con

yes, I agree with the above terms.
Debate Round No. 1
Schopenhauer

Pro

Obviously, as my stance says, i believe that honor exceeds morals. Honor commands power and respect, it allows for people to be respected without the same restraints as morals. Morals are made solely for the purpose of manipulation. You may tell people not to rebel and revolt, not to throw off their shackles by saying that it is good to be a complacent sheep. While honor involves respect for those more powerful and greater than you, and respect for those below you. Honor gives people the ability to have a code without being manipulative like morality is. Morality causes people to value weakness, while honor values strength, and makes people strong without becoming weak, as in not facing an opponent face to face. Morals teaches complacency, but most of all morals teach that the weak will inherit the earth. This is a lie, because the strong dominate and take what is theirs by the right of their strength. Despite this, honor should give power to those with wisdom and allow those in power to take care of those below them in a father and son relationship applied on societal terms. The main point i am trying to get at is that honor gives a code of conduct and order without valuing weakness.
Now that the introductory arguement is finished, i will focus on the failings of morality. Morality has failed to let the strong take what is theres. Morality has failed to prevent manipulation of the masses. Morality has failed to vslue strength over weakness. But moralitys most egregious "sin" is valuing complacency and stagnicity. It values corruption, laziness, and weakness.
Now i will say the virtues of honor. Honor promotes stregth, while taking care of the weak. Honor gives respect to those who have great power while encouraging innovation. Honor doesn't promote weakness, but seeks to change it to strength. Vut the most valuable asset of honor is that it prevents degeneration and murder of other humans while still keeping the strong in power.
wasittoya

Con

Sometimes, people need to realize what fights are worthwhile. Judging by how honour was defined as doing what's right, if someone slightly believed that something was wrong, they should stand up. This is great in principle, but in practice, there are times when the person needs to follow the norms until they have more information. Morals would likely tell the person that to listen until they see the motives, what sacrifices would it take to change the policy and if the sacrifice is worth it to them.
Debate Round No. 2
Schopenhauer

Pro

If one wishes to see how a situation turns out they are being intelligent but by the same token they are being weak. More wrong doings could be caused by the enemy if one beleives that they should wait to see how many die, or how the problem turns out. Every life comes with the impending doom of death, there is no point in waiting for a problem to subside when it causes more increasing loss and destruction. It is in the peril of our lives when we stand up and fight for what we believe i that our meaningless lives are given meaning. If everyone dies then it is pointless to live a long, meaningles life. If anything a life like this is extended torture. Even if our lives are short, if we stand up and fight and argue and debate for what we believe in then we give our lives pojnt and meaning. Honor values and recognizes this. It forges us nto those who will defend what they believe in rather than lyong around like cowards. Even if only over messages through a computer we defend our thoughts and beliefs we are giving our lives meaning through conflict. Morality however will weaken us and make us accept out lots in life, make us be humble when we should take what we want and be who we want, it makes us sheep, morality makes us weak. But if we have honor, and war with reason andnforce of arms wr live a good life.
wasittoya

Con

You are assuming that the person is waiting until people die. This may not be the case and the person may wait until the person who chooses to kill others simply gives enough evidence that they would kill someone before acting. If someone was going by honour and decided to kill the person too soon, maybe the "killer" mentioned how s/he does not like a certain group of people, than the fight could be for a misplaced cause and could cause a death, either the "killer" or the person, over a situation that didn't need to happen. Sometimes, it's best for one to see what will happen.
Debate Round No. 3
Schopenhauer

Pro

In my mind it is too pricy to not act quickly. If the people judge you as rash, cruel, and malevolent the s be it. You have acted quickly, and the price could have been much pricier if you had not acted quickly. I believe honor to still matter more than morals, and i believe it to be more powerful of a force and to have much greater of a capacity. If you are going to wait to strike at a killer because of evidence, then you will be costing time and resources, not to mention perhaps lives. Of course it is best sometimes to let time past, but other times when you see clearly and know that a "killer" still will fight, and that justice will not be doen then with honor you will kill what you have do. It does not matter if one dies early when they live a life of meaning, why would ne want to live a long life without standing up for what you believe.
wasittoya

Con

You appear to be assuming that a person who waits before taking action would not do what's right; this is not necessarily true, the person may take action and have more of a plan because s/he is more likely to know the situation well. Also, many people would agree that not every fight is worth the sacrifices it requires (For example you wouldn't lead a protest in a school just because many people didn't like the lunch special), a person following honour as their only way of knowing what action would be taken, would make the sacrifices in each fight, which could lead them to regret their actions. Someone following morals might take the time to think what the fight means to them (I don't mean what they'll gain from the fight, but why they feel it's important). I am not saying that one should follow morals and not act. Morals just help the person take the time to think their actions though clearly and get the facts. Morality is not just accepting what you are told, but it's taking the lessons that you were taught about right and wrong to help you make decisions in your life.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
SchopenhauerwasittoyaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a better honed more thought argument.