The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

logic determines right and wrong and thus morality

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 1 vote the winner is...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 378 times Debate No: 74691
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro


the right way, is the moral way, is the logical way


it is wrong for you to close your eyes now and keep them closed in order to read on till this last word


Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I accept. I would like to provide the following definitions:

Logic: The study of the principles of correct reasoning. (1)
Morality: A code of conduct, either a code put forward by society, a group or an individual, or a code that would be put forward by all rational persons given certain conditions. (2)

My opponent says that logic determines right and wrong and thus morality. However, as logic only studies the principles of correct reasoning, a logical deduction with false premises is still logical.

For example:
P1: Genocide is morally correct.
P2: The Holocaust was a genocide.
C: Therefore, the Holocaust was morally correct.

The above syllogism is logically sound. However, its first premise is wrong, so while it is a valid syllogism, it is not necessarily morally correct. It is not considered morally correct by most societies, groups, individuals and rational persons. This shows us that logic alone cannot determine what is right and what is wrong, and therefore incapable of defining morality.

(1) http://philosophy.hku.hk...
(2) http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

cause+effect=logic


how do you study if its resonable to close your eyes if the purpose is reading on?


reason+intent=morality


i cant be immoral if i cant tell right from wrong, like an animal, and i cant be immoral if i have no intent. like a rock cant be immoral



logic is true, not false



is genocide wrong?



logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic)

Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

My opponent appears not to have responded to my actual argument. I apologise if this is due to a misinterpretation of his post, but should no further clarification be provided, I suggest that the voters consider my initial argument dropped.

cause+effect=logic

My opponent has laid out a bare assertion here, with no explanation whatsoever of its significance in his line of reasoning.

how do you study if its resonable to close your eyes if the purpose is reading on?
Unfortunately, the meaning of this sentence is vague and ambiguous. Syntactic ambiguity only adds to this opacity, for 'if' can be interpreted as 'whether', or as a subordinating conjunction indicating condition. I would like to politely request that my opponent clarify this sentence.

reason+intent=morality

i cant be immoral if i cant tell right from wrong, like an animal, and i cant be immoral if i have no intent. like a rock cant be immoral

logic is true, not false

is genocide wrong?

logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic)

My opponent then asserts that one cannot be immoral if one cannot tell from right and wrong. While I do not challenge this conjecture, I would like to remind my opponent that this does not prove logic determines right and wrong. As for his statement 'logic is true, not false', I would like to say that based on the definition, logic studies what is true and what is false. I will give a simple example: Boolean logic studies truth values, so 1 XOR 0 is 1, 1 OR 0 is 1, 1 AND 0 is 0, and so on. 1 represents 'true' and 0 represents 'false'.

Finally, Using simple mathematics, I have come to the following conclusion based on my opponent's equations:

logic+experience of logic+intent=morality

However, the underlying reasoning behind this equation is unclear, and I would like to ask that my opponent elaborate on it.

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

i dont know what the holocause is xD

is it resonable to close your eye as you try to read on and respond? ..

this is the proof..

to add morality, is it resonable to tell your daughter to read this and that she should close her eyes while doing it, and when she does it she will get an ice cream? ...
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

By claiming he does not know what the Holocaust is, my opponent appears to have dropped my initial argument.

is it resonable to close your eye as you try to read on and respond? ..

this is the proof..

to add morality, is it resonable to tell your daughter to read this and that she should close her eyes while doing it, and when she does it she will get an ice cream? ...

I am not closing my eyes (organs of which I possess two) as I am reading my opponent's argument. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to demonstrate how the status of one's eyelids is related to logic, and to morality. I ask again that my opponent clarify this.


Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

why dont you close your eyes and read on.. and write with closed eyes..
Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I am now typing with my eyes closed. However, I am still doubtful of how this pertains to our topic, which is about logic and morality. I would like to ask that my opponent elaborate on this. How is my typing logical or illogical?
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

and, write with your eyes closed.


logic is the measurement of resonable..


Diqiucun_Cunmin

Con

I will assume that my opponent's first statement is an imperative one, asking that I write with closed eyes. I suppose typing with my eyes closed last round did not constitute writing. I will now try again.

I offer a scan of my writing below as proof:
However, I still fail to see how this pertains to logic, nor how this proves logic determines morality.

To conclude, my opponent has failed to offer a valid argument to support the resolution, and has dropped my sole argument disproving it. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
and=+
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
no debate going on
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
I'm honoured to debate you on your 200th debate. :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by phiLockeraptor 1 year ago
phiLockeraptor
vi_spexDiqiucun_CunminTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better spelling and grammar, more readable arguments. If I were debating him he would have had a much harder time holding them up, but I wasn't the one debating him, so between the two, I'll give it to Con. Honestly I didn't even understands pro's position.