The Instigator
Vitreous
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
superfox1995
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Vitreous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 22277
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Vitreous

Pro

First off i'd like to thank the individual that accepts this debate. Any form of debate is okay so feel free to write as you like. The first round ill be relinquished as an acceptance period so no arguments will be posted in the first round. I look forward to debating the individual that accepts and wish him/her good luck.
superfox1995

Con

I'd like to thank you for allowing me to debate. I will be looking forward to this round. I wish the best of luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
Vitreous

Pro

I thank my opponent, superfox1995 for accepting this debate. Superfox, be reminded of the parallelogram that is David's head. Anyways, this round will be cases an the remaining rounds are rebuttals. Let me begin.
P=Point E=example(s)
Value:Conditionality-imposing, containing, subject to, or depending on a condition or conditions; not absolute; made or allowed on certain terms
Value Premise:pragmatism-is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. In simpler words, its the link between morals and the real world.
Burden of Proof: If the Con cannot prove a single moral value to exists no matter the circumstance, the vote shall be given to the Pro.

P1)Hypothetical Imperatives
This idea basically states that when one ties morals into real world situations, the moral in turn does not become a standard always to be upheld, but rather a premise based on the conditions set forth.
E:-The right to life is recognized in the ethical world as a standard. But tie this into pragmatism, and recognizes that killing can become morally acceptable. Killing Hitler could have prevented the holocaust and would be morally permissible due to the amount of lives saved. Justified war can also be recognized as a condition.

P2)Moral Tyranny
Conditions are a very necessary part of pragmatism other wise the moral value being upheld becomes a tyrannical law that oppresses people as well as create illogical and immoral situations.
E:One has an obligation to helps other (on a moral perspective). Yet, under pragmatism, one doesn't carry an obligation to help an individual planning to create a nuclear bomb and annihilate a nation's population.

And with this, i urge a Pro vote and await my opponent's response. :D
superfox1995

Con

I will form my debate more like a formal case.

Resolved:No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality.

definitions:
moral law is defined as the rules of behavior an individual or a group that may follow out of personal conscience and that are not necessarily part of legislated law in the United States.
conditionality is defined as depending on the circumstances of a situation

My core value will be that of morality. We are looking to what is moral since the resolution states moral law.
My value criterion will be that of quality of life. If we are using moral laws, we are using our conscience to lead us to what would be the most reasonable way to solve a problem. By using our conscience, we are doing what is best to most achieve the greatest overall quality of life in a society or individual.
My first contention will be racism. Racism is a problem whereby we separate the black and whites. In legal cases involving blacks and whites, most blacks would get the automatic loss because they were black. That's racism. So the black people can take revenge in a form of what they think is the most just way of reimbursing their damages. For example, if you have ever read the book "Ragtime" by E.L. Doctorow, a black man by the name of Coalhouse Walker Jr. has his car bashed up by white firefighters. He sues and he gets the loss. He gets aggravated and retaliates by attacking the firehouse. This was right because he was punished for no logical reason. Since the government never helped, he had the moral right to retaliate to his damages.
My second contention will be retaliation. Same as my first contention. This is another instance where moral law is permissible. We use moral law as a retaliation to whatever damage or harm was dealt to a person. Another example is World War 1. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 caused Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia. Austria-Hungary wanted to retaliate for what was done on them.

Moving on to my opponent's case:

His value premise is pragmatism, which means depending on the situations. Moral law depends on the situations but we are using what we think is right to perform the action and how good it was done. Using moral law doesn't necessarily mean we help the evil but we take into consideration of what the circumstances are. I will tie that into his second contention but I will do that later. Moving on to his first contention.
His first point drops because in real world situations, the moral remains a standard because we look to how moral the action was. The action depends on the situation but it is a standard nonetheless. It fails as a premise because do not refer to moral laws but we use them to determine how moral the action done by the person, society, or nation was.
His second contention also drops because what is moral is to perform some type of action, not to just provide help. His example referring to it says that one has an obligation to help others but under pragmatism, one doesn't do that to a person planning to create a nuclear bomb and annihilate a nation's population. A moral course of action would be to take out the person in charge. The definiton of morality is what is right and just. The right thing to do is to get rid of the person instead of helping the threat in harming other people/ nations. Linking this with his value premise. Since his value premise is pragmatism, which is based on the situations, his example must fall and so does his contention because there is no such thing as moral tyranny first, and second of all. We know what is right from wrong. We would not help a group of people perform evil towards another group if they were asking us. We would react by taking out the people because they are posing as threats towards not only another group but they could also target us instead or take us out after they get rid of the other nation.

And it is for the reasons that i urge a neg vote and await for my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Vitreous

Pro

I would quickly like to ask that for his fourth round (not the next one, the last one), the Con should not make a rebuttal as to be fair and provide an equal number of rebuttals. I'm not sure exactly how forfeiting goes as to who wins, so i just ask that he write the words "I await the vote and urge a negative ballot" for the last rebuttal.

Just for the benifits of those reading i'll do definitions of terminology, an analysis of both cases, then examination of refutations, then provide an outline voting points/weigh the cases, then burdens.
Terminology
Autonomy-freedom of an individual to choose
John Locke's Freedom- the ability to do as one pleases as long as on does not infringe upon another's rights
QoL-Quality of Life
Security- the value of keeping one's self free from harm(practice involves self defense)
Sanctity of Life-The value that all life is sacred
Right to Life-the idea claiming that an individual has a claim on life
Analysis

-Neg-

Alright lets clear a few things up. First off I find that your contentions have little link(if at all) to the resolution as well as my case. All you seem to do is argue about how conditions are bad. Yet overlook tha main idea that i assumed was imperative in the neg case: That there actually is a moral law free of conditions. The fact remains is that i only need two simple argument to deter your entire case:
-those examples do not follow moral conditions
-you recognize that conditions exist and only set forth immoral examples, giving the ballot to the Pro.
It seems completely illogical to uphold morality with contentions that outline immorality. Furthermore, you attempt to prove that achieving QoL will achieve morality, yet never tie in as to how moral conditionality disproves QoL. So the entire Neg case is based on no link to the resolution.

-Aff-

My (P1) sums up the idea that moral conditions are based on the situation. The clear link remains that moral conditions are based on the conditions present, tying real world practice with morals (leading to pragmatism). I also provide a case where the hypothetical imperative exists.
On to my (P2). Okay, so my (P2) basically states that upholding moral laws without conditions can create the misuse of a value meant to be moral. I also provide an example for this which clearly outlines where a moral condition must be used to avoid promoting tyranny and harm. Yet, if one reads further into my example, one can realize that moral conditions are also utilized to avoid a conflict of moral values in the sense that one can define moral permissibility as having a greater obligation to a more numerous amount of moral values. I'll elaborate in the examination.

Examination
On to my opponents refutations. First he misinterpreted my Value Premise(Value Criterion). Pragmatism is the link between practice and theory. This ties into my Core Value of conditionality(a dependance on hypothetical imperatives). On to the "what we think is right point", moral conditionality is formed on what the moral law permits or seeks to achieve. For example, if one were being attacked, one would have the right to fight off the attacker to preserve one's own life (even at the cost of the attacker), because the values of autonomy, John Locke's freedom, QoL, and security create a conditionality to Right to Life. These values allow an action to be deemed morally permissible to avoid a conflict of morals. In turn, this conditionality is not what we think is right, but an action taken to the obligation of more moral values. Tie this in to the refutation of my (P1) to interpret that my opponent agrees with with my contention by not providing an argument, only restating it and saying it fails because its based on morals. THAT IS WHAT A MORAL CONDITION IS, AN ACTION BASED ON MORALS. On to his attack on my (P2), he makes a costly mistake of URGING TO OVERIDE THE MORAL VALUE OF SANCTITY OF LIFE AS WELL AS RIGHT TO LIFE!!! He admits that one must act on moral permissibility and forfeits to the Pro. But moving further, he only states there is no such thing as moral tyranny but never proved why this is so and he again admits we must look to moral conditionality in his "right from wrong" point.
Voting Points
-My case is left untouched
-My burden placed on the Con was never answered
-His case falls
-HE ADMITS I'M RIGHT MULTIPLE TIMES
-All of his refutations fall
-My examples stand as proof that moral conditionality exists in all values
-I further elaborate as to how no moral law is free of conditions
-Even if his case were to remain, there is no tie to the stance that some moral are free conditions
Weighing
You can deduce that I am winning this debate on a logical perspective, on the stance of my case, and the strength of it. On a logical perspective, I clearly define that no moral law is free of conditions, reaffirm that with the idea that moral conditions are necessary to avoid a conflict of moral laws, and turn my opponent's refutations into Pro points. Meanwhile, my opponent is left with a case that doesn't address the issue, refutations that only proove im right, and severely flawed logic that doesnt define a negative stance. In fact, the main weighing issue is the that my case remains solid as well as reinforced while my opponent is left with a distruaght case, laying in a clutter weak points.
Burdens
-The first burden is placed on myself. That burden is that i must prove that all moral laws have conditions. Since i have successfully fulfilled this, i urge a Pro ballot.
-The Con still has the burden of proving that there is indeed a moral law free of conditions
-An additional burden is placed on the Con to disprove my examples. If he cannot to do so, a Pro ballot is urged.
-My final burden on my opponent is to link his case to the resolution. If he can not do so effectively, then the Pro wins todays round by default, because the Con has no premise to stand on and only refutations with nothing to tie to.
superfox1995

Con

superfox1995 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Vitreous

Pro

I've spoken to the opponent and was told he did not actually forfeit, rather, time ran out. So, to be fair, I will allow my opponent to respond in this round to my case. I also extend all of my points from the last rebuttal into this, so my opponent will have to effectively refute them as well as answer my burdens. The burdens will be restated below(from the previous round):

Burdens

-The first burden is placed on myself. That burden is that i must prove that all moral laws have conditions. Since i have successfully fulfilled this, i urge a Pro ballot.

-The Con still has the burden of proving that there is indeed a moral law free of conditions

-An additional burden is placed on the Con to disprove my examples. If he cannot to do so, a Pro ballot is urged.

-My final burden on my opponent is to link his case to the resolution. If he can not do so effectively, then the Pro wins todays round by default, because the Con has no premise to stand on and only refutations with nothing to tie to.

I await my opponent's response and urge a Pro vote. :)
superfox1995

Con

i'm just gonna state logic at this point. I'll start with logic that'll back up what i said. i'm saying that moral law can be used in conditions. moral law is based on conditions. based on constructivism, what is morally permissible is based on the circumstances. Thus, something that's illegal doesn't make it moral. It was illegal to help slaves in the 1800s because of the fugitive slave act but it was moral because those who helped believed that slaves were equal to us and wanted them to live like us. so this explains that moral law is free from the conditions set forth.

My opponent's first example says that killing can become morally acceptable. this means that murder is moral at times which leads back to my constructivism point because under circumstances if killing has to occur to fulfill moral goals then it has to be done. so his example fits more into constructivism more than pragmatism.
My opponent's second example is contradictory because because he states that one has an obligation to help other people yet that same person doesn't have to at the same time.

The last thing I will do is link my case to the resolution.
My core value is morality. we're basing the case on moral laws. We should look to who better supports morality.
My value criterion is quality of life because we are doing whatever it takes to achieve moral goals.
My first contention is racism which is an example of what circumstance would using moral laws over legal laws be permissible.
My second contention is the same as my first contention only referring to another circumstance which is in retaliation to an action already done to one person. By doing so we're benefitting our quality of life and achieving morality because the people in our society will be happy that we did what the attacking nation deserved.

And it is for these reasons that I urge a neg vote for this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I think a "law of morality" is moral rule, and there are many moral rules. It isn't remarkable that rules come in conflict and it requires judgement to resolve the conflicts. (Compare it to the rules for safe driving: match your speed to the flow, don't go too fast, etc.) All the rules are valid rules, but that doesn't mean that there are no problems in applying them. Note the Golden Rule is a metarule, a rule for applying rules.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Vitreoussuperfox1995Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: In the challenge, Pro didn't explain the resolution, define any terms, or provide a context for the debate. I think Con made a reasonable interpretation with good counterexamples. Pro was hard to understand and muddled. Con's missed round loses Conduct.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Vitreoussuperfox1995Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Args later.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Vitreoussuperfox1995Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Vitreoussuperfox1995Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really think that con knew what he was doing in this debate. He conceded to the pro multiple times before the actual forfeit, and never really argued for moral laws that are absent conditions (they do exist, try looking into Rawls's Veil of Ignorance or Levinas's the Other). Anyway, it's still an easy vote for the pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Vitreoussuperfox1995Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had really solid arguments in round three, and since the con FF that round that really sealed the debate for the Pro. arguments to the pro, conduct to the pro for the round that the con forfeited