The Instigator
racechic98
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jason83
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Jason83
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,644 times Debate No: 38306
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

racechic98

Pro

I will be standing for this Resolution. If someone were drowning we would have a moral obligation to save them.

In today's round I will be setting the standard for when a moral obligation comes into place. When LIFE is being violated, we have a moral obligation. If someone were drowning in a pool, obviously, life is being violated and since life is my standard for when a moral obligation comes into place, they would have a MO to save the person drowning. You may ask, Well what if the person that is watching the person drown doesn't know how to swim? Well if you are 1. aware of the problem (person drowning). 2. able to help (swim, etc.). You have a MO to save that person.

Thank you and I look forward to your response! :)
Jason83

Con

I am not against helping your fellow man/woman, but I do believe there is a logical disorganization to your philosophy: if you are a parent and would have to abandon your children to save someone at possibly your own peril, you are rejecting your responsibility to those children or any family member who may depend on you. There are things to be weighed before placing your life in peril for another person or anything for that matter. Hence, the moral obligation is to the greater good and not the perception of urgency.
Debate Round No. 1
racechic98

Pro

I agree with you that yes there are many factors that could play in to a situation where a possible MO is in place. But the Resolution was stating IF someone were drowning we would have a MO to save them. This is a value debate, we don't have to figure out who, what, where, when, etc. I just have to prove there is a moral obligation. And something i would like to state as well, you brought a parent/child scenario into the picture, which is un-resolutionary. If the resolution stated "all parents have a moral obligation to save drowning people regardless of whether or not they are watching kids" You would have a valid point. The person only has a MO if they are able and aware. The parent would have to be able to jump in the pool to have a MO
Jason83

Con

Morality is a human philosophy based on cultural upbringing. Morality is also a personal choice--there is no "law" that (barring duty to act statutes) mandates we do anything to give aid to our fellow man. Sociopathics and those with social disorder lack morality and believe you have NO moral obligation to do anything. Morality is relative to the observer. Just because the perception of morality exists in your upbringing does not make it so for all. It obligates the question: "why do we have a moral obligation...?"
Debate Round No. 2
racechic98

Pro

If someone wasn't taught about moral obligation in their upbringing does it cancel out, per-say, that obligation? I set a standard in the first round for when as moral obligation comes in to place, when life is being violated. So are you telling me that if there was a baby drowning in a pool, and you (Assuming you can swim, and are aware that this child is drowning) walked by looked down into the pool, saw the drowning child and walked off....letting the child die, that would be okay because it wasn't taught in your cultural upbringing? Im not sure you understand what MO means- "Black's Law Dictionary sates: A duty that is based only on one's conscience and that is not legally enforceable." Its based on consideration of right and wrong.
Jason83

Con

Right and Wrong are taught. One or the other becomes culturally acceptable or tolerable depending on your upbringing. A drowning baby in a pool has only as much moral significance as has been ingrained in the observer. I stand by my assertion that NO we are not morally obligated to do anything for anyone, be it save them from drowning or being beat up or any violation of a human life. Choosing to act is an internal and private obligation you have with yourself.

What if that someone drowing had just tried to do you bodily harm? Where does your MO rest with that?
Debate Round No. 3
racechic98

Pro

Im not exactly sure im understanding your argument. I agree that some people may feel more obligated than others to help, but all i am saying is that if someone were dying and we were aware and able it would be morally right to save them. Let me ask you this, When do you think a moral obligation comes into place?

P.s. Im so sorry that I misspelled "Drowning" in the resolution, please forgive me.
Jason83

Con

Morality is a stigma. When a crowd of people refuse to safe someone, it's clear there is no "moral obligation" to do anything. An obligation is something you have to do even if you don't like it. That would mean even if you don't like water, fear swimming or don't even like the person drowning you are obligated to save them. That just isn't so. But now you are saying your argument is that it would be morally right to do something and not a moral obligation?

This argument is not about saving a drowning person--it can't be. Swimming is an individual skill not possessed by everyone. Now money, most all of us have some money. Are you morally obligated to send money to poor counties for starving children?
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Friedrich Nietzsche contracted syphillis as middle-aged adult after frequenting brothels; because there was no treatment at the time he experienced worsening insanity over the last two decades of his life due to the degradation of his nervous system. He also subscribed to the view that humans should not be treated as equals (anti-egalitarianism), and the Nazis used his writings to further reinforce and spread their views. In the final years of his life, he suffered three strokes which left him partially-paralyzed and catatonic.

Nietzsche held some interesting ideas but his life choices were evidently questionable. I disagree with the view that he was a great philosopher.
Posted by Eragonopotter 3 years ago
Eragonopotter
As a great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said "Morality is a fiction, invented by the herd of inferior human beings, to hold back the few superior members. It would be nice to save a drowning guy, but if I have my own stuff to deal with, I really wont care about him.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
Who do you think would accept this debate?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
racechic98Jason83Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to refute the arguments regarding subjective morality.
Vote Placed by oldman1990 3 years ago
oldman1990
racechic98Jason83Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that con argued the topic better. There was a little disorganized logic for both sides as far as some of the arguing went.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
racechic98Jason83Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con explained that there are situations when a person shouldn't take a risk to save someone physically. I agree. But there are things an eyewitness can still do, like scream for help, get the attention of others, etc . . . this is taught in first aid training. Con also argued that morality is subjective, and this can be used as an excuse to voluntarily not save someone. I simply wasn't convinced by this argument. I gave this debate to Pro.