The Instigator
Monicacg
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Nashiaroman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

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  
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: 7/22/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 760 times Debate No: 35884
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Monicacg

Pro

There couldn't be a way to do something without a moral consequence following thereafter. People from different societies do things according to their own moral code. Without these moral codes, there would be chaos among the culture. If someone is to commit murder in our society and there is no moral codes for anyone to follow, then out society itself would be too crazy for us to even live in. If there are no consequences, then one cannot learn from there mistake, and learn what is right from wrong.

There couldn't be a possibility of human actions without a moral consequence by the following reasons:
(1) people should follow moral code in order to live a safe life.
(2) without moral codes, there would be chaos among the cultures
(3) there must be consequences with every action so we can know right from wrong.
(4) therefore, there couldn't be a possibility of human actions Sioux moral consequences.
Nashiaroman

Con

I agree with what you are saying about moral codes. However, my point goes in another direction. Not everything we do has a moral consequence that would follow. It is important to know the causes of an action rather then know the consequences. By knowing the cause is the only way you can know what the consequences would be. However, we cannot assume things just because of past experience. By saying that there is not possibility of human action without moral consequences, then you are assuming that the consequences would be universal. Therefore, the consequences for an action would be the same for every time we do the same action. However, we know that this is not the case that just because an action have a consequence it is not necessary the case that the effect would be the same. We cannot assume something we do not know and we do not know if an action would have a moral consequence at all. By assuming that every action has a consequence, then nature would be fooling us. My argument is the following:

(1) I cannot assume that an action would have the same consequences the second time I do it just because of previous experience.
(2) Nature can sometimes can fool us to think that something would happen but it wold not.
(3) However, it is important to understand why something happens first to understand the consequences.
(4) Therefore, we should focus not on the consequences but on the causes of the action.
Debate Round No. 1
Monicacg

Pro

Good point. Although I must say, where there is a cause, there will always be an effect. An effect is basically the moral consequence of an action if you put it that way. If we are to commit a wrong action, we know a bad effect would follow. For example, killling someone is a cause, and the effect thereafter would be someone dead, and loved ones of that person emotionally hurt. We should then know that it is a bad thing because we see people emotionally hurt, which is where moral codes would come into play. See, without these moral codes, everyone would commit wrong doings as a person and never realize there mistake. We need those moral consequences in place to help us see right from wrong. As I said, where there is a cause, there is an effect.

I'm not saying the consequences are universal, because moral codes are not universal themselves. As said previously, all culture come with their own moral codes, so they can know what is right from wrong. Sme cultures see killing an innocent person who is useless in there life as morally right, as our culture would see it as morally wrong. Not every consequence can be universal due to the fact of these moral codes. We receive the consequences due to our actions as a person. And, not ever consequence is the same. Since moral codes are different in every culture, killing someone can be a rewarding thing to some people, making that a positive consequence, while in our culture, that is a negative consequence, receiving jail time, or every a death penalty for our wrong doings as a person.
Nashiaroman

Con

However, not always you would be able to determine the causes of an action and if you dont know why something happens then it would be wrong for you to think that the action would have the same effect. You can infer something but it is because nature makes us believe this. However, by doing this nature is fooling us because not because an action had an effect before would necessarily mean that it would have the same effect the second time you do it. For example, what if you are doing something and the world comes to an end. Does it necessarily follows that the reason for this is your action. I dont think so. And i know my example is a little too dramatic. But if i prove to you that one action does not have a moral consequence then im attacking one section of your argument which implies that there is something false in it. Not all = some not. Then it does not necessarily follows that an action would always have a moral consequence. Then, again, we need to know the causes of something to determine the consequences. Then we cannot assume an action would have a consequencebecause we do not know if it is true or not.
Debate Round No. 2
Monicacg

Pro

NAture can not make us believe anything, due to the fact that nature is pure science. Nature cannot be judged by believing in things like miracles. Science must be done in order to know the real cause and effects of why things happened. I understand that if someone believe that their action may have suddenly caused the world to end, but that is why science is in place in the world. In science we make inferences, then test them to see if they are true. We must use science to let us know what is morally right from wrong, and why thing happen they way they happened.

Moral codes are also based on science and its causes and effects. We need to understand that thing do not happen for a reason, rather they happen because it was meant to be that way due to the course of nature. I'll use my example of murder again. Someone killing someone is a cause and effect thing. Then, science comes into play to determine what were the cause of the killers actions, and how the effect happened the way it happened. Detectives cannot just look at a body and say "she's dead because someone shot her". They must do further research as to why the whole thing happened.
Nashiaroman

Con

We assume that just because something happened before it would happen again. However, this is not the case. Nature keeps changing. Therefore, we do not have the certainty that something would happen again. But you are talking about science. We cannot study science without understanding the causes of things. A good scientist would not believe a fact but would try to understand the reason behind it. However, you cannot determine the effect without the cause. For example.: you might see a ball moving. However, you cannot just assume the ball is moving and that's it. In order for the ball to move some force most be produce. Then the consequence would be that the ball move. Yet, why did the ball move is more important to know. We cannot assume that things happen and that's it. There most be a cause for everything.
But back to my point, let us assume I throw something in the air and it breaks in pieces. It is erroneous to assume that the cause of the object to break is because I throw it in the air. Then, my action did not have a consequence on the pen but the pen had a action of its own. Then my action was not responsible of causing the moral consequence. But again you would be assuming that the object would come down. Yet, we do not know if this is true. You would only assume that because that is what most of the time happens. Then, there are some actions which would not have any moral consequence.
Debate Round No. 3
Monicacg

Pro

I believe every action does have a moral consequence. Everything we do has an effect, right? So there must be a consequence following every action we do. This must be the case because of the fact of cause and effect, and nature as well. We do not control nature, it just happens on its own because of science. What we can control are the causes we do to produce a certain effect. That effect can be a positive or negative outcome. Most of us would obviously like a positive outcome to be the effect, but if nature's course does not produce a positive outcome, then there is nothing we can do about because we cannot change nature or science itself, we can only investigate why it happened to be that way. All of our maneuvers as a human must be followed by a consequence, good or bad. Not all consequences are bad, as they can be good for us too. For example, sacrificing your summer to take a couple of classes to be ahead of the game. That is an action we chose to do that, in the end of it all, will produce the positive consequence of finishing the course, getting a good grade, and getting that course out of the way so we no longer have to deal with it. Sure, we wouldn't get to enjoy our summer as everyone who chose not to do summer courses would, but it would all pay off at the end. So, considering that example, all consequences aren't always a terrible thing. Now, if you choose something that you know is not morally right in our culture, then that is when you will receive a punishment for that action you have chosen to do, resulting in a negative consequence. But, that all happened because you chose to do something morally wrong. See, without these consequences, again we wouldn't be able to distinguish what is right from wrong. When we do good, we would know because of the positiveness that comes out of our action. The same goes for when we do wrong, we see the negativity of the consequence we receive. These help us know right from wrong, and help our society function properly with the right moral codes one should follow.
Nashiaroman

Con

I understand the point you make in your argument. However, consequences are not important as much as the causes and the process that lead to the consequences. For example lets assume we throw a ball in the air far away and someone else that is far for you catch the ball. However, the person that catches the ball has no idea that you was the one that threw the ball. The person must not assume that the ball came from the sky. If we assume things base on our believes or our actions we would left out so many things just because we do not know them. Therefore, it is very important to show the causes of the actions or why the action occurs.
But here is my point. Let us assume we throw a pen in the air. There are many forces acting on it and not only the force that we exert on it. The pen would also exert force against gravity in order to come back down. Therefore, it is erroneous of us to assume that the pen would come back. It is not certain that every human action have a moral consequence. We are not certain that nature would always be with us and doing things the same way. We cannot assume things we do not know and we definitely do not know the course of nature. As you well mentioned that we cannot control nature; then what makes us think that there is some possibility of us knowing the future.
In addition, sometimes actions do not have a moral consequence but people try to enforce it. For example, Aristotle was accused of corrupting the youth. The moral consequence that he was kill did not happen because God wanted it but because the people did not agree with their believes. This makes me think that the "moral consequences" do not just happens because of people's actions but because people force things to happen. Therefore, if we are the ones enforcing this "moral consequences" then are they really happening because is nature? I do not think so.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.