Is morality constant?
Debate Rounds (3)
My argument's reliability shall rely upon sources. This shall be a serious debate. I am very esteemed.
Morality shall be defined as the distinction between what action is right and what action is wrong, and constant shall be defined as a state that doesn't change.
Morality is independent. We humans may have introduced morality, but we don't construct the idea. We don't update it when we realize that this action is actually immoral, etc. It is US trying to figure out what is really right.
So, from that, we can come to the conclusion that morality is constant.
Morality reflects the current fashions of the day. What is good or bad ,like the fashion in hats , can change over time.
A good example of that might be attitudes to Gay rights.Also Christian communities in the southern states of the USA were once moraly O.K with slavery.
The temporary wisdom of hindsight makes us dubious custodians of what is wrong and what is right
"Morality reflects the current fashions of the day. What is good or bad ,like the fashion in hats , can change over time."
Morality is the distinction between good and bad, but not by fashion, or at least how we define it nowadays. You should've defined it in the FIRST ROUND yourself! But then, why are you making examples of morality as if you reffering to it as good and bad acts.
And if that was what you were reffering to, that's just opinion.
"A good example of that might be attitudes to Gay rights.Also Christian communities in the southern states of the USA were once moraly O.K with slavery."
True. However, read the argument I (And I exaggerate that "I") presented and try to comprehend; We may update our perspective on what's good and what's bad. However, morality remains as is. We may confuse an action as moral but it's actually immoral. It's US trying to figure out.
My argument remains uncontested.
I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
""Or at least as we define it now" ,you say . Thank you , you just agreed with my argument."
Did you even bother reading the entirety of the sentence? That sentence implied that morality isn't usually defined as the distinction between good and bad IN TERMS OF FASHION GOOD AND BAD! And that you should have defined morality in the 1st round.
CONDUCT: Tied. We both conducted ourselves well.
S&G: Very minor errors from my opponent. For example:
"were once moraly O.K with slavery."
Not only was "morally" mispelled, but an unnecessary dot is in between the "O" and the "K" in "Ok".
This, though, doesn't have to be deducted from my opponent.
ARGUMENTS: This one, I leave up to the voters. I formatted my arguments, but its credibility and rationality depends on the voters. After all, why would we present such arguments if we don't believe that our arguments are logical and is based on historical facts, etc?
SOURCES: Tied; Neither cited sources. However, I didn't need citation, because I didn't derive my argument from any. My argument is based on logic, while my opponent made a couple of historical claims without sources.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con misspelled okay and morality. Nothing else is worthy of point distribution.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.