There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence
Debate Rounds (4)
Before moving forward, moral consequence refers to a negative outcome that follows an action that is based on morals. Morals refer to things that are viewed as right or wrong. Reflecting on the previous statement of having a large variety of human action, one will realize that a moral consequence following each action would be impossible. If this was the case, batting your eyelashes could be seen as incorrect and followed by a consequence. This, of course, would make no sense. Having someone face consequences for batting an eyelash incorrectly seems laughable.
Adding to this, cause is always thought to be followed by effect. In this case, human action would be the cause and moral consequence would be the effect. Is it necessarily the case that all human action produces moral consequence? There are, in fact, human actions that produce outcomes that are seemed are desirable. Some may even go on to say that it produces pleasure. Now if this is the case, would these too be considered moral consequences?
When speaking of pleasure, we can refer to the Hedonistic Calculus. This analysis determines the value of pain, and more importantly, pleasure. One of the questions posed is "does it affect anyone". Posing this question implies that there is a possibility that no one can be affected. If no one is affected from a certain human action, does it necessarily follow that there will be a moral consequence? What if this human action does not even deal with a moral issue?
There is possibility of human action without moral consequence is as follows:
1.There are many considerations for human action
2.Not all human actions are negative (Not all " Some not)
3.If not all human actions are negative, then some are positive
4.Therefore, there is possibility of human action without moral consequence
Using Betham's essay on the principle of utility. Utility means the principle that approves or disapproves the action towards the party whose interest in question. Example he uses is the Government
1)Government may dictated the principle of utility but too augment happiness of the community is greater than to diminish it.(128-129.7-1.1)
2)Utility is any object that produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, to prevent pain, or unhappiness.(128.4.1)
3)It is vain to know the interest of the community without knowledge of interest of the individual(128.6.1)
4)Thus principle of utility uses reason and of law to tear the fabric of felicity and identify the subjection.(128.1.6)
A community may do things that some will disagree or agree with based on their morals. Thinking if it is right or wrong is a moral consequence
When addressing morals, we must also address the distinction from what we think things to be and what they actually are. Thinking something is right or wrong, does not make it right or wrong.
In addition to this, thinking about an action we do does not necessarily mean a moral consequence. We must consider all the actions that do no involve morals.
A pleasure to me can be a moral consequence for someone else.
Adding to this, when you argue "no one knowingly does evil" are you taking into account murders? Say you have someone admit to premeditated murder, are they not knowingly doing evil? Even if you favor the argument of relativism, one must realize that there certain moral codes that are universal. For example, murder. If murder was not viewed as morally wrong then a society wouldn't be able to function.
When you say a pleasure to you can be a moral consequence to someone else, have you taken into account everything that you find pleasurable?
My main argument is that there is a possibility for human action without a moral consequence. Saying there is no possibility seems as if blinking an eye would result in a moral consequence. How can something that needs to happen have a negative outcome. Saying there is a possibility for human action without a moral consequence also agrees to the fact that some human action leads to moral consequence.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.