The Instigator
inaudita
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Stability is the noblest of all virtues

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 636 times Debate No: 58306
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

inaudita

Pro

First round is acceptance.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

stability is for sure a virtue. but there is no reason it should be considered the noblest.

nobility often has the connotation of self sacrifice, as it should. it is better to treat others as you would like to be treated, than to always seek your own interest above theirs. focusing too much on stability would allow one to put themselves above others, in order to achieve their main goal, of stability.

even aside from that commonly accepted virtue, we could look at the reasons stability are good, and find better virtues. stability brings economic benefit and predictability to oneself and one's friends and family, and country. but it says nothing of the degree of those things. wouldn't it be better to find a way to maximize your contribution to society and oneself but be unstable? he might have invented microsoft, then went on vacations, then maybe got himself admitted into a psych ward, then maybe abused drugs and alcohol, and then lived a normal life, but with lots of roller coaster of this stuff. it is still better that he do what he does than to be stable.

i might add, it is just an odd, random, argument to make 'stability is the noblest of virtues'
Debate Round No. 1
inaudita

Pro

I would like to point out the Con did in fact not accept but argued in the first round, but I shall argue on anyway.

"nobility often has the connotation of self sacrifice, as it should. it is better to treat others as you would like to be treated, than to always seek your own interest above theirs. focusing too much on stability would allow one to put themselves above others, in order to achieve their main goal, of stability."
Stability comes when the situation is beneficial for all. This is due to good conditions for all. This in fact makes it a virtue, as it is beneficial to all. Beneficial to all doesn't in fact mean all are happy, but it means all are content, which means as generations progress within the same structure of stability the children of these individuals will be happy due to the fact they will naturally be conditioned. Stability is in fact noble as it makes all happy over the long run. If an individual puts himself above others in order to cause stability he will benefit all individuals eventually if stability is created.
"even aside from that commonly accepted virtue, we could look at the reasons stability are good, and find better virtues. stability brings economic benefit and predictability to oneself and one's friends and family, and country. but it says nothing of the degree of those things. wouldn't it be better to find a way to maximize your contribution to society and oneself but be unstable? he might have invented microsoft, then went on vacations, then maybe got himself admitted into a psych ward, then maybe abused drugs and alcohol, and then lived a normal life, but with lots of roller coaster of this stuff. it is still better that he do what he does than to be stable."
The "roller coaster ride" you speak of is in itself an argument for stability. During his highs and lows he reaches no more happiness than a stable individual would but in fact becomes much higher in sadness at times. This means that the unstable individual in fact suffered more.

dairygirl4u2c

Con

con argues more benefit can be achieved by stability than by treating others as yourself. this is an issue of a fundamental nature, an inherent value, that i as wit hmost society value that sort of do unto to others stuff highest. there's nothing i can say that would change your mind if you view it otherwise.
though, outside of a religous context, and into philopsy moe generally, he is espousing utilitarianism. this philsophy necessarily must have a 'evil means be damned' mindset to it. if it didn't, then everyone could claim to be a utilitarian, 'spread as much happy as you can'. the fact that con wants to place stability on such a high pedastal shows that even by moe secular meaasures, he is sacrificing inherent good and evil.

also, con has not adequately rebutted the last point, which measured outcomes by his own standards. con argues that bill gates would be better off as stable, sure. but he misses the point, that he and everyone would be better off, if he wasn't stable, but was still able to produce mirosoft and do his humanitarian efforts, and everything else. con's own standards are economic output, contentment, predicablity. while maybe there are some downsides to bill gates being unstable, the overall benefit would be best if he did what he did, but was unstable while doing it.
Debate Round No. 2
inaudita

Pro

"he is espousing utilitarianism."
I am espousing stability at all costs, as even though it may be detremental in the short term to many individuals it will help many more in the future.
"'spread as much happy as you can'."
Spreading happiness as a first step isn't the most efficient way at causing happiness. Bringing about conditions for happiness which are inherently stable is a much more efficient way of causing happiness among the masses along with stability. The happiness itself will work as a form of operant conditioning in which the individuals are constantly being reinforced by the behavior of stability with happiness.
"also, con has not adequately rebutted the last point, which measured outcomes by his own standards. con argues that bill gates would be better off as stable, sure. but he misses the point, that he and everyone would be better off, if he wasn't stable, but was still able to produce mirosoft and do his humanitarian efforts, and everything else. con's own standards are economic output, contentment, predicablity. while maybe there are some downsides to bill gates being unstable, the overall benefit would be best if he did what he did, but was unstable while doing it."
I do not argue that progress cannot come through instability. Progress can in fact happen more in instability through competition, but it is at the cost of the happiness of many individuals and the detriment in being able to cause happiness in them through proper means in the future that this is payed as. Perhaps slower progress and happiness are what this society needs. It could lead to things such as reduced stress levels and longer, happier lives, which in fact many say the human goal should be.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

con does admit he would espouse utilitarianism. can't say he's necessarily wrong for his beliefs, but i disagree, and draw attention to his lack of concern for ethical and moral actions, usually 'means' to an 'end'

so it seems that con concedes that there are better attributes than stability, given he admitted bill gates would be better to do what he does while unstable. con merely was able to argue that bill gates would be better as stable. cant argue wit that, but what we've concluded is that there are other attributes that trump stability. namely, ecnomomic stimulus, productivity, etc. it would be merely better that stabiilty be included too, but we see they are indeed better attribtues.
Debate Round No. 3
inaudita

Pro

"con does admit he would espouse utilitarianism. can't say he's necessarily wrong for his beliefs, but i disagree, and draw attention to his lack of concern for ethical and moral actions, usually 'means' to an 'end'"\
Ethical and moral actions are meant to be judged by each individual society differently. This is in fact what makes societies differ, and in a stable socioety the established ethics and morals would differ from the common morals, which would allow the individuals to feel comfortable in their roles.\
"so it seems that con concedes that there are better attributes than stability, given he admitted bill gates would be better to do what he does while unstable. con merely was able to argue that bill gates would be better as stable. cant argue wit that, but what we've concluded is that there are other attributes that trump stability. namely, ecnomomic stimulus, productivity, etc. it would be merely better that stabiilty be included too, but we see they are indeed better attribtues."
How can you say that economic stimulus and productivity are harder to come by in a stable society and in fact impossible to include in a perfectly stable society. This is because the competitive nature of business causes individuals to encourage diadvantagment and the segregation of wealth, which in fact anger the masses and eventually cause rebellion. This can be seen in hundreds of cases across time. Competition encourages happiness in the few and unhappiness in the many which in fact is the massive problem in capitalistic society. Happiness should be encouraged rather than wealth and happiness in itself both encourages and is a byproduct of stability.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

"How can you say that economic stimulus and productivity are harder to come by in a stable society and in fact impossible to include in a perfectly stable society"

i didn't say that. i just said that by your own standards, there are better virtues than stability. productivity, mostly. productivity might be more conducively gained, with stability. but it's not a necessary requirement
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by inaudita 3 years ago
inaudita
Somebody please vote on this.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
igga who?
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
igga wha
Posted by Marx 3 years ago
Marx
Sup nigs
No votes have been placed for this debate.