Debate Rounds (3)
Since nobody is ceirtan that there will be afterlife or reincarnation all that is left is nothingness, so no matter how many people you can save by sacrificing your life it wouldn't matter because as far as you know your world will be over and whether anyone appreciates your sacrifice will be irrelevant.
Morality-a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
Now, I think that it is a very moral to sacrifice yourself. Let's also get one matter straight. We are arguing from the moral point of view, and not the it does not make any sense point of view.
Morality-It is generally agreed in society that one should not lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Morality was an idea developed in Ancient Greece to provide ideas for how the common man should behave. If every common man practiced these ideas, than the world would be a better place. One might say that it is idealistic for every common man to practice these ideas, because their will be rotten apples in every pile. We are not talking about that argument. This debate is about morality. Now, the idea of sacrificing yourself for others is a sign of extreme morality. If everyone was to practice the basic tenants of not to lie, cheat, steal, and sacrifice, I believe the world would be a better place. If everybody believed in these ideas, than we would live in a more calm and orderly world. That is what morality is designed to do. From the moral perspective, It is moral to sacrifice yourself, and will make this world a better place.
Richard Rescorla was instrumental in the evacuation of thousands of people during the 9/11 attacks. As the director of security at Morgan Stanley, Rescorla was a stickler for his building"s safety and held twice-yearly evacuation drills to get people out.When the attacks happened and the tower next to Rescorla"s was hit, he put his plan into action and calmly instructed people to leave, right up until the moment he was killed. Rescorla"s actions were considered instrumental in the successful evacuation of over 2,500 people. R32;2,500 lives matter. One might ask the question that if there were more people like Rescorla we would live in a better world.
The bond between siblings is strong and unless you have one, it"s hard to explain the intense urge you feel to protect your kin. Ryan Arnold had that urge when his brother Chad desperately needed a liver transplant.R32;R32; Without thinking, Ryan immediately checked that he was a compatible donor. Discovering that he was, the transplant went ahead.As with all surgeries, there was risk and Ryan lost his life during the procedure. He"d made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that his brother could live. He risked his life.
There are countless more people that have done the same thing these people have done. They not only saved lives, but they saved families. They saved fathers, mothers, children, brothers, and sisters. This is what morality is. Morality is idealistic in nature, but idealistic things can become a reality. Pro said the person that could sacrifice shouldn't, because "doing a simple thing like contributing to economy". Rescorla saved 2,500 lives. Those are 2,500 lives that can do a "simple thing like contributing to the economy". One must see things through a moral lens. What Rescorla, Ryan, and countless others did should be the model for everything a human should be. Than we can live in something close to a honorable, orderly world.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: con uses real life sources to prove that people have saved others with more potential benefits than harms, while pro only gave suggestions with no solid evidence to back it up. Interesting objective morality definition (intentional-ism combined with utilitarianism) on con's side, would have been cool to see him in a "Morality is Objective" debate.
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.