There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence
Debate Rounds (4)
1.Every action inevitably creates a reaction.
2.For example, pleasure and pain, whenever someone does something it always has either a pleasurable or discomforting effect.
3.If the effects are following the action it is obvious that pain and pleasure are the moral consequences.
4.In confirming that either of these was achieved following a deed, a person has begun to identify cause and effect being moral consequence.
5.Hence, there is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence.
I disagree that "there is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence" and these are my premises:
1.First of all, morality varies according to society, so what is viewed immoral for a certain culture it can easily be accepted in another.
2.There are situations where an individual may seek pleasure through painful acts. Meaning that the pleasure they are seeking may be seen as immoral for the individual. Not all of our actions affect those around us.
3.There are some situation where people are force to conduct certain acts that might be viewed as immoral but they don"t see it as such but as a consequence, and how the situation appears to be.
4.In many occasions seen in history, many people commit immoral acts because their act will bring happiness to others.
5.Therefore, there are instances where our action isn't in our control and doesn't necessarily imply moral consequence, so if not all human actions suggest moral consequence then the statement is false.
Bentham also hits on this topic with he agrees that not all human actions can be seen as immoral because different societies have different norms that can be perceived as sinful.There are human actions that can be easily accepted in one society but denied in the others and even morally neutral motives. Bentham also shows us how the principle of utility allows us to challenge our moralities of causation and rightness to achieve happiness without in fact being a moral consequence. Bentham also provides something called Hedonistic Clause, which gives the understanding on how we should choose are own actions, because not all action necessarily imply a moral consequence.(Bentham 132.2.1-7) Giving a real life scenario, there are always people that try new things and break there moral belief to experience something they feel is going to bring them happiness. For example, when people go to prison and change their religion because they feel that this other religion will cleanse them from their sins and assist them through their struggles. By these people making this type of decision, there isn"t any moral consequence towards any moral belief.
although certain actions may be viewed differently by certain societies. The main socity to which they are doing the actions consider it to be a moral act in their culture, tribe, or town. though ones actions may be denied in one socity in the main society where the action is done it may be consider moral. in arstoles he speak of good tempered where acting quickly on your anger is good oppose to the bad tempered where keeping the anger in is bad. By acting on the anger right away those people view that action as moral. As you go on to say that not alll actions imply a moral consequence which may be true, but in the end the person committing the action must have a thought that what he/she are doing will cause a moral consequence thus ending in a positive action. Coming to an end you mention the switch of religion for convicts but if you notice they change of religion, their actions, is helping them stay away from doing a repeating crime thus ending in a moral consequence
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rross 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Maybe Pro would have done better if he had provided a careful definition of "moral consequence" in round 1. He said that pain and pleasure are moral consequences, but then seemed to accept Con's implied definition of morality as a subjective code of conduct. For this reason, Con's arguments were more convincing, I thought. BTW. Wives are not possessions. If a wife sleeps with a guest, it is not because her husband shares her, it's because she chooses to be hospitable. I would have taken conduct off for this, but you both said it.
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.