The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Morality is more important than human desires.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 38555
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I believe that teaching morality in society is more important than endorsing human desires. It is dangerous to endorse human desires because we are all evil and we all fall short on morality. It is important to teach everybody about the dangers of drugs and the dangers of constant fornication. To teach and endorse human desires would be to allow people to go out and ruin themselves and others. Us humans are designed to go all the wish with no stop, so we must be teaching each other to stop and to think.


You are incredibly wrong!
Lack of morality in no way causes ruin. Mankind has always been immoral it is human nature. Immorality has led to good throughout history.

Human desire is the catalyst for all of progress throughout mankind's history.
Human desires for money lead to wealth creation and innovation. Desires for relaxation lead to convenience. Desires for conquest and dominance lead to advances in technology. All of these advances caused by mankind's desires have been a great benefit.

Finally, morality is a personal ideal. One man's morality is another's immorality.
Debate Round No. 1


Can you give me any historical evidence of when immorality benefited society? I highly disagree on your claim that immorality and human desires benefits society, history proves that wrong. I understand that people disagree with each other on morality, but I'm sure we'd all agree on some things. If we fully teach people to follow human desires, that will turn out to be people killing each other, pedophiles running out raping children, it wouldn't be a nice sight.
It's foolish to say that it is beneficial to only teach people to follow their human desires. We need a basic moral guideline to teach people so they don't go out on drugs and constant sex and murder...


Following desires is not the same as being an extremist.
In the same way that you should not advocate a complete ban on all sex, drugs and killings, I do not advocate complete chaos when following human desires.

Without a desire for sex, there would be no children for the next generation.

Historically, drugs were used as recreational devices long before they were used for medicinal purposes.
Man's desire for drug induced effects has led to pain relief for medical patients.

Without a desire to kill and conquer, modern science would not exist. Without the desire to kill, much of technology would not be invented. I am of course talking about man's desire to kill for conquest in war - not to randomly cut people's heads off.

I am arguing that human desires are what causes people to be motivated to improve life.

For example, even something as simple as media formats was decided on what the porn industry preferred.

The bottom line is that desires cause progress. We are much better off having desires with the occasional crime than living without any desire for life and being like vegetables throughout life.
Debate Round No. 2


That is true, our human desires do indeed inspire us to do good things and to invent new technology. However, I disagree with your claim that our technology has improved because of our violent nature at war. Yes, our war technology is better, but you are avoiding the main question here. I am asking whether all human nature desires improves society as a WHOLE, not just one or two factors. The question you are avoiding is this; Is it more important to teach people what is right and wrong (drugs, murder, being honest, etc) than it is to tell people to follow their thoughts and feelings? Because in reality we are supposed to avoid some of our feelings and we are supposed to not act on it. That is the question. Not if whether our weapons are better because of war or how much women get pregnant. The question here is simply, is teaching people about the right thing more important than teaching them to what whatever their hearts desire? I believe it is more important to teach kids about how to obey your parents, how to be honest, how to avoid drugs, that sort of things. Because sometimes our human desires want us to rebel and lie and steal, which is not the way to go...
So, stop avoiding the question and get right to the point. Is it more important to teach morals to kids like no stealing and being honest? Or is it better to tell them they should just do whatever they want? That is what this debate is about.


To answer your question. Not all people are equal.

Some people are timid and submissive. Others are violently aggressive.

Some are generous and altruistic. Others are stingy and self centered.

It is true that making those who have criminalistic tendencies conform to the middle road in behavior would benefit society.

However, if you chose to do make everyone conform to the same standards of behavior. The world will lose the natural instincts of generous people.

Thus, my point remains. People when left to their natural desires will lead to world improvement.

The real question is whether those desires can be fulfilled in a moralistic way. Do you agree?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TryingAtLogic 3 years ago
An interesting concept, but one must realize that morality is objectified to serve as bad as well as good. Hitler took the stance that it was a moral necessity to murder, in genocidal portions, the Jewish peoples; Winston Churchill (more or less) took the stance that it was a moral necessity to stop Hitler. We see now how morality can be compromised with evil.

Moreover, Korea had the desire to build nuclear arms; Edison, most likely in the same sense, had the desire to build the first modern light blub. We see now how desires can influence good.

Now let us think hypothetically what would happen if we encouraged morality over desire. Hitler and Churchill still exist in fame, but Korea and Edison fade from the spotlight.

Now only positive morality. No one exists in fame, because negative morality does not exist, so positive morality has no reason to. We all become, in essence, not immoral but *a*moral.

So perhaps the debate would be better stated as: "Positive morality is more important than negative human desires."

This, of course, removes the need for morality be still allots for room for Edison and his like.

P.S. I didn't even touch upon the fact that morality is usually under direct influence of desire and desire is usually guided by morality.
No votes have been placed for this debate.