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

"The more cashless our society becomes, The more our moral compass slips. "

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
amitian has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 169 times Debate No: 117650
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

amitian

Pro

Key Point: "The more cashless our society becomes, The more our moral compass slips. "

The above quote is based on solid research conducted by Dr. Dan Ariely, One of the world"s most respected behavioral economists. It is clear that we are rapidly going cashless (Apple Pay, Etc. ), So this conclusion is bothersome if not downright scary. In his book The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone"Especially Ourselves, Dr. Ariely believes that cheating is contagious, And that a group"s behavior will have a powerful effect on each individual.
Ashfaq_Ali

Con

Thank you amitian for providing ur arguement. As there were not enough frame work and analogies in your 1st round, It is pretty much confusing for anyone to understand the point you were actually trying to make. But again, As you have shared the opinion of Dr. Dan Ariely, Let's see if it were a right point to make. To understand the evolution of morality and economics, We need to focus on the primitive era of humans in when they had not introduced with these complicated factors. Even in those period of time, They tried to follow their instincts and those instincts were not actually based on the economics parts as economics got its recognition much later. Even if you follow the human history, You would find that the first crime that had been committed was not because of economy but rather because of jealousy. Perhaps you could argue that human itself is a selfish creature which could easily be persuaded with something interchangeable. But solely it was always not the case. In medieval period, If you look on the histories of The Byzantine Empire, The Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire you will find that these empires tried to spread their emipre sometimes by force over the globe just to prove their superiority rather than persuaded by the economical factors you are trying to talk about. So my whole point is, It is not reasonable to blame economy (as the whole cashless matter comes under the economic section) for moral degradation of humans. As for Dr. Dan Ariely, He also talked about the moral dilemma of humans. To explain that he told in an interview and I quote, "In the case of illegal downloading of music, You can be dishonest and download illegal music, But you don"t have any difficulty thinking of yourself as a bad person because everybody is doing it". This statement helps us to understand how a human usually thinks? In extention, It's possible for us to imply that the whole morality part can vary from human's believes as it's based on standards they create. In other words, The more cashless our society becomes, The more it starts to adapt new changes which even impacts on the whole morality thing which is necessary for human to improvise with timing for revolutionary change that we witnessed in the periods of Industrial Revolution, Social media revolution and so on.
Debate Round No. 1
amitian

Pro

You have stated your belief about the human tendency to cheat in general. You have made an attempt to draw a conclusion that the immoral behaviour of humans has nothing to do with economy.
However, You seem to completely ignore the tendencies man has when he is dealing with a physical representation of value. You are right in saying that people tend to do illegal/immoral things when they believe it to be an "okay" thing to do. This fact supports my statement and in general, Supports cash/physical money when the argument is between a cashless society and a lively society where people's actions are not controlled by the (authoritarian) government.
Over time, The government and other powerful systems have been quite successful in making the common man be deluded into believing that a cashless society provides 'convenience'. The advantages of a cashless society which these power-holders do not throw light to are that it lets them control the global population much more efficiently. Can we really trust these few hands? Is this not an authoritarian system being formed in the name of democratic well-being?
Ashfaq_Ali

Con

Actually, If I'm not wrong, The whole debate wasn't kind of meant to be centered on if the cashless society encourages an authoritarian system or not, Or if it's just capable enough to harm people in the name of democratic well-being as those sections are pretty much broad for anyone to cover. Besides, The common man getting deluded by the politicians is not necessarily a fault of cashless society as you can see the capitalist ones (like Singapore, Canada, Japan ) provide you with your rights like freedom of speech, Freedom of living your life in your own way, Having your economic freedom, Ensuring your competency than the socialist ones like Venezuela, North Korea ( even if it call itself a 'Communist' one) and sometimes China. If you look into cashless countries like Japan, Canada, Australia, Sweden, UK - you would see that in those countries the whole democracy part works in a good way. And As for your fear part about having those few hands controlling the policies, It is obvious that the people elected those personnels to handle these facts as they have faith in them, Otherwise they wouldn't have even bother to elect the government. Even if you say those politicians actually manipulated the people to vote them, Then again, You still won't be able to guarantee that in cash-based societies the scenario would be different, As in those societies, The possibilities are much higher as the cash part remains intact (Examples. Indonesia, Argentina, India and many more). As for the moral part, According to Dr. De Waal, Human morality has two extra levels of sophistication that are not found in primate societies. Humans enforce their society's moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, Punishments and reputation building, Which easily demonstrates that how peoples ideas do help in building the moral codes. Besides, You really need to have a clear concept about the differences between economics and morality as these both are not suitable complementary to each other as sometimes the foundations of these things are pretty much contradicting. Also, The whole morality part differs from a person to person which is why it is hard to bind it with the absolute. As the whole economic part weren't the main factor on human learning to get selfish in primitive era, It is not rational to ask if an economic factor solely will able to degrade a moral chain or not? Thus, I believe, The cashless society won't play a key role in the slippings of a moral compass in a society
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
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 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.