There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence
Debate Rounds (4)
I argue the moral consequence of actions through the following:
1.We make decisions on our actions through pain and pleasure.
2.Our actions affect those around us through these same measures.
3.Men are disturbed by the ideas and notions that they form around things or actions.
4.Therefore, no matter how simple an action may be, once someone has formulated and idea about that action it produces a moral consequence.
5.Moral meaning pain and pleasure
6.Pain and pleasure have seven circumstances, its intensity, its duration, its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity or remoteness, its fecundity, its purity, and its extent.
7.If by the slightest that one out weights the other, that action will have served as painful or pleasant.
8. Therefore, there is always moral consequence to any action.
In sum, even though an action may be seemingly small, it still has an effect on someone.
I will argue for con through the following premises:
We utilize pain and pleasure as guides to make us happy.
Not all of our actions affect those around us.
In order to be happy we should take others into consideration.
So, if someone conducts an action that makes them happy and that action does not affect someone else in anyway, then it will not be a moral consequence.
Morality does not necessarily have to be included in someone"s actions.
The hedonistic calculus shows how some actions do not have moral consequences.
Pain can bring pleasure.
Therefore, not every action has a moral consequence.
I am not denying the fact that there are actions that may be seemingly small that will possibly effect someone in the future, but whether that action produces will always produce a moral consequence is what I will be arguing against. To every cause there will be an effect.
Disagree that there are actions that do not have any moral consequences. If we continue with the principle of utility, actions are considered moral through pain and pleasure. If some one has an effect of either pain or pleasure it is still moral.
I do not argue that of the Jainism, but that every action has an effect and it is moral.
Whether that action is big or small it affects someone, in a good or bad way. That is just how action works, the Good and bad, and cause and effect. So I argue no actions are without moral consequence
Whether we take government actions, to community actions straight own to individual actions they have a moral consequence.
Let"s take for example a governance of a certain nation decides to be a dictatorship that will have a moral consequence on the people of that nation for generations to come.
Let"s take a look at the current events for a moment with the Trayvon Martin case and that community"s decision to have a community watchman group. The actions of that community played a part in the moral consequences of Zimmerman"s actions with Martin. There are moral than one consequences in this case.
And an individuals decision to help a waitress with her dishes produces a moral consequence of pleasure for that waitress. If that individual chooses not to help that waitress with those dishes it would still have a moral consequence even if cleaning up those dishes was her job. In order to see that an action produces pain or pleasure, we need to weigh the seven circumstances I provided earlier in my round 1 argument. if the weight of the actions lean more to pain than pleasure, or less pleasurable than pleasurable it still is a moral consequence. Now that individuals decision to not help just left the situation at where it would be they just ate there food and left. Now it is not that persons job to worry about if this decision that they have just made will be pleasurable or painful, but none the less the action will have a moral consequence.
Back to my prior example with the waitress, I had multiple options on what I could have done, I could have not only done nothing, but I could have made a mess and been a belligerent customer. What would have produced more pleasure, pain or made the waitress neutral? The decision of not doing anything would have made her neutral, as opposed to making her happy, or making her upset. Yes, we do need to weigh the seven circumstances, and in doing so, I have determined that by not producing a moral consequence in her life would be by not doing anything.
Morality to me is doing good or bad. Is it bad for me not to do anything, or is it good? It is neutral and it is not going to affect her in that manner. If I do good, then she will benefit from it, if I do bad then she will suffer from it. If I do nothing, she will do her job and not be affected by my choice of doing something or nothing.
If someone sees a homeless person on the street and doesn't give them anything that has a outcome. If they see the homeless person and gives them something that has a outcome, and they can both be painful to that individual. The fact would be that it is still a moral consequence.
Aside from the two people involved in the cause and effect those actions can have a moral consequence to someone else.
Back to the waitress. If the individual decided not to help the waitress and continued on their way, it can still have a moral consequence, yes even for things that they had no idea about, but it still produced a moral consequence.
Take for example if that waitress has to go pick he child up from day care, and the decision of that individual to help with the dishes would have made her get to her child that much sooner, it would be pleasurable than if that person decided to just eat and leave, and she is maybe late to getting her child because she had to clean up those dishes, possibly miss a train or something uncounted for, it would still be a moral consequence.
On your topic on the homeless person, sometimes actions have only moral consequences. In that specific case, we cannot determine what exactly is going on in that person"s life. We would not know if it is a moral consequence or not. Based on the Hedonistic Calculus, if the amount of people affected are more than just you then it may be morally consequential. Intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent have a big part in it. If we base our actions off these factors then we can determine whether or not something will have a moral impact on someone"s life. Something that will forever change their life in such a way that they will always remember that and affect more people.
Therefore, not every action that we make has a moral consequential effect on someone else. Just because if may effect them in one way, does not mean that it is a morally right or wrong effect.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Both PRO and CON accepted a BOP; CON did not meet his.
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.