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

Rationality is Good

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
StarTrek_is_Trash has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 292 times Debate No: 100131
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I believe that rationality is good because......

a) Why should we let society be destroyed by simple human nature? Shouldn't we let the empirical judgements of rationality rule over us? While it might mean seeing things we don't like, the effects, no matter how emotionally scarring the content is, and any interpretation is this is fair game because it doesn't matter how it was intended, the empirical content of the speech, what matters is the receiving of said speech.

b) Morality is just an excuse to oppose something, even though there is no logical reason to do so, due to the fact that morality has been used to justify wars, prevent progress, and commit genocide; And that morality has also caused many bad things to happen, and not just a justification for said things to be committed.

[Sidenote] This is a philosphical argument, so bringing up sources makes you look ignorant and narrow-minded, just saying [\Sidenote]


Well actually rationality and morality don't contradict. In a way, rationality comes from morality. Your debate is titled "Rationality is Good" but "good" doesn't exist without the concept of morality. I will not use a source but just a small example. 2 young children are playing and one of them gets rough and hits the other. You must RATIONALLY decide what is morally acceptable. Either allow the kid to hit back or have the other apologize and confess that they are MORALLY wrong for that. Allowing retaliation for the victim would cause a lasting physical conflict, which isn't rational because conflict is MORALLY wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


Right, thank you for your argument, and 'good' was introspect as a relative field. So, right, the rational option is to break it up, BUT not force the other to apologise, but telling them that conflict causes injury. So here's a question for you; You must decide what is rational here, so, you're in a parliment, and then the all vote for a war with a neighbouring superpower, and all your and their allies would be obliged to join, and you predict from troop numbers and statistics that such a war would cause mllions of deaths, now, the moral decision would be to let it through, because to protect what is right and democracy, but the rational option is to prevent the war using your veto power, which would make you hated, but you ultimately saved the world from a catastrophic world war. Which do you choose?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
Does the irational exist at all ?
Posted by Oooo 1 year ago
It's fine.
Posted by McDavid 1 year ago
Defining rationality and morality before hand will make this debate go smoother, unless you want to debate the definitions.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.