The Instigator
wingnut2280
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Conspicuous_Conservative
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Morality: Herd Instinct in the Individual (2)

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,402 times Debate No: 2307
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (11)

 

wingnut2280

Pro

I see no reason why I should be bound by moral action when it impedes my own self-interest. I;m not disregarding all morality, but, when it hinders my ability to pursue my own well-being or personal interest, it should be cast aside.

If you can prove to me some reason that I should follow rules of morality like "Do not steal" or "Do not kill" and prescriptions like the 10 commandments when they interfere with my own interests, please do so. Thanks in advance.
Conspicuous_Conservative

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for making this issue debatable in a first come first serve format, giving me the opportunity to make my case. Although I have a great deal of respect for my fellow man and my opponent does have his right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what about the rest of the world's estimated 6.8 Billion people do they not also deserve the same rights as you. If you would like I can keep it on a smaller scale and look at the United States estimated 310 million. Now if I were to accept your way of living every one of these people could do whatever they want with no regards to their neighbor. Are you sure that is the world you would want to live in.

I am bound by societal law in addition to the morals I choose to follow due to my religious believes. It is much harder to follow moral beliefs and often times it can lead to a person putting themselves second and delaying their own aspirations. Now think of the world without police officers where murders, rapist and other felons can do what they want and their would be no consequences. So would you feel alright letting a rapist who goes around forcefully raping young children? I mean of course he has the right to do as he pleases without his self-interest being hindered right? Or how about murderers we should allow them to kill without any concentrates too? I am fairly certain you were killed by someone you have angered it would stop you from living your way.

I will conclude this first round with this shorten concise statement because honestly you have not presented any facts supporting your issue other than I want to live with no rules because I want things my way. This juvenile reasoning is something that couldn't win an argument with your parents and hopefully other reasonable minded people will see that their is no way this would ever work.
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Pro

First, you argue that everyone acting like this would lead to societal chaos.

How do you get here? I don't advocate everyone acting like this. Myself, as one person, acting as a rational egoist, wouldn't cause everyone to act as I do. I would be one person acting outside the construct of external moral prescriptions. Thats not the world I would like to live in, which is why I don't advocate it.

Next, you argue that religion makes people act selflessly. This may be true. But, my framework indicates that I act within my own INTERESTS, not necessarily selfishly. So, if I value a religion, it would serve my interests to honor it and reap the benefits of being religiously just. But, say that isn't the case with me personally. Why do I have reason to honor its rules if I don't believe in it?

You feed the voters and myself all of these terrible scenarios of rapists and murderers.

Again, this would not be the case. I would be ONE person acting this way. Furthermore, rapists and murderers get caught by the law. My framework assumes that I can get away with whatever immoral action I am performing in my own interest. If I can't get away with it, punishment and prison time isn't in my interests and therefore I wouldn't do it.

Your pedantic interpretation of my argument is hardly accurate or concise. Let me clear things up for you, as I don't advocate a society with no laws or me getting away with everything or anything else similar to that.

First, I think my actions should serve my own interests. This can include helping others and other charitable acts if that is what I value. So, don't confuse persuing self-interest with acting selfishly. Second, moral actions are sometimes serving those interest and sometimes impeding them. Punishment is generally not in my self-interest as I do not want to be punished. Therefore, I shouldn't follow moral prescriptions if they impede my self-interest and I can get away with it.

I can't really provide facts that pertain to moral framework. Reasonable people should actually see the opposite. That these moral prescriptions are simply an impedance on my self-interest. Frankly, personal interest should be pursued. While this debate is soley about me, as one person, your arguments for society collapsing don't really hold relevance. But, if you would like to debate me on that scale I will send you a challenge sometime.

If you can provide me some reason that I should follow moral rules when they interfere with my interest and I don't have to worry about negative consequences, because I won't get caught, than please do. But, please don't turn this into another "well this is stupid" type of debate. Thanks.
Conspicuous_Conservative

Con

In order you you to live in your own little dream realm rules would have to change allowing for you to commit the many crimes you have intended in order to gain your self satisfaction. When those rules go many other humans that may have been deterred from crime would go and do as they please. So although the whole world would not turn to crime a large portion would. The only way I do not see world wide chaos from occurring is if you where the only person except from rules and if that is so this is possibly the weirdest debate I have been a part of.

Your position contradicts itself over and over. I have a hard time distinguishing whether your intoxicated, coherent or insane. You are able to satisfy many charities needs without living in some magical world in which you and you alone are able to break the rules while all us "common folk" are stuck in the real world. You need to state a clear position before you go on some sort of magical tangent.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Pro

Are you even reading the argument?

How do I have to change the rules? I argue that I would only act unlawfully if I believe I could get away with it. People get away with crime all the time without changing the law. There is no way my action induces this kind of societal breakdown. I don't change the law. I act while avoiding its consequences. This is possible, I assure you.

Pursuing my own self interest can ceratinly bring about good things. Look at batman. He pursued his own self interest which happened to be helping the helpless. Who says I wouldn't be stealing from corrupt corporations and giving it to the homeless or something equally robin hoodesque?

Despite your personal attacks and lack of response, I am not suggesting I live in some fairy tale. I am simply asking you, is there some reason to follow the law or other moral rules if I don't suffer consequences (get away with it) and it satisfies my personal interests? To put it simply, I think the only value or weight these moral prescriptions have is consequential. That is to say, they are only valuable for their consequences. So, if I can avoid getting punished, what reason do I have for following the law? Certainly, my stealing a purse doesn't lead to societal breakdown. So, other than the fact that you think i am a crazy drunk, what reason do I have to follow the rules of society if I don't get punished and it benefits me (and perhaps others)?

Please respond cogently next rd or I'll have to put this up for a third time.
Conspicuous_Conservative

Con

I am glad to say that this "interesting" debate is nearing an end. At no point in this debate did my opponent make a clear case nor did he support any of his statement by facts. He did not even give a reasonable statement.

He first stated he should have the right in order to live his life as he saw fit. In round two he stated that he should be able to go by being immune from laws, just to change in his following round to the position in which he states he wants to be able to elude law enforcement issues. Since his will is too do as he pleases he can continue to debate this issue as long as he wants. I feel sorry I debated this issue because it has made no sense from the beginning.

My opponent has compared himself as a batman and robinhood type figure who did as they pleased for good. This is to draw in votes but what he doesn't state is that batman, robinhood, spiderman and other fantasy characters put the will of mankind before their own. Spiderman often complained that he wish he was not cursed with his strengths. Roobinhood robbed from the rich in order to give to the poor but with your mind set on yourself first, I am really unsure how much money would make it to the poor. Batman lived as almost as a hermit helping the wronged. Like I stated you can post anything you feel necessary it is not my job to stop you but if you continue to post the same argument I am sure your going to come up with an opponent that has the same arguments as myself.
Debate Round No. 3
wingnut2280

Pro

OK, I guess I'm going to have to put it up again. You fail to understand the argument and respond accordingly.

I have postured a reasonable idea. Why should I follow moral rules if I can avoid the consequences and benefit from it? You haven't answered. My position is actually the more reasonable one. We shouldn't blindly follow other-regarding prescriptions when they hinder our cause.

You should restrain yourself from such personal attacks next time and stick to the issues. Normally, answering an argument involves logic, not just saying "Well thats stupid!". You should try and overcome your maturity level and make cogent args next time.

Anyway, extend all of the analysis that hasn't been answered in the previous rds.
Conspicuous_Conservative

Con

You did a poor job a clarifying your position you took so many different stances it was hard to figure what direction you where coming from. In your opening argument you proposed simply committing crime and in round 3 you became a hero advocate to the poor. If I have wronged you to the point in which you state I have I do apologize for the inconvenience I have caused. Might I suggest If you are going to propose this argument another time please take a clear position and defend your point with some sort of fact or reassuring statement that was absent from this debate. I would like to thank the few that have followed this debate and I ask you vote for the one that had the clear position.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
never said who I voted for now did I? :D
Posted by wingnut2280 6 years ago
wingnut2280
If you don't agree with someone challenge them. Vote for the winner of debates, regardless of your personal opinion. Otherwise we can just put up popular arguments and win. This is getting ridiculous.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"He's speaking not of what's best for everyone as a whole (i.e. morality)"

that, I'm afraid, is precisely what my comment addresses. Morality is not "what's best for everyone as a whole" automatically. It happens to be such I think, but I define it as what is best solely for oneself. The purpose of moral actions is the continuation and fulfillment of ONE'S OWN life.
Posted by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
He's speaking not of what's best for everyone as a whole (i.e. morality) but of what's best for solely himself to do given the system that currently exists.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
*erm replace "reality" with "morality" in that last statement. Both are true but the latter is more coherent :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Morality, wingnut, is all about your interests. Altruism is not the ultimate but the denial of reality. "Do not steal" and "do not kill," except against those who have first done such to you, is supportive of your interests. Why? If you steal from or kill someone who has done nothing to you, everyone else who has done nothing to you is encouraged to kill you, by your actions.

The essence of morality is not a "herd instinct" but self-preservation.
Posted by wingnut2280 6 years ago
wingnut2280
In what way did you answer my argument at all? You called me a drunk child and simply said you thought my argument was stupid. You picked out anecdotal analogies and presented thme as my argument. Had people read the debate, they would have realized this.
Posted by Conspicuous_Conservative 6 years ago
Conspicuous_Conservative
It is not the nuh, uj position you claim I took that has won me votes it is your lack of a logical statement coupled with you weak comparison to Batman and Robinhood that I feel I debunked.
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
While I disagree with and hold quite a few arguments against Pro's position, he has unmistakably won this debate. It angers me that Con has so many votes. Con started off strong in the beginning, but then completely derailed and his concluding sentence itself was an admission of confusion. Pro's argument was not hard to follow at all, but in my opinion, was easy to defeat.

My vote is for Pro.
Posted by wingnut2280 6 years ago
wingnut2280
Thanks beem0r. The fact that this guy's "Nu uh! Thats stupid" style of debate has gotten more votes speaks to the voting problems on this site.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by blond_guy 6 years ago
blond_guy
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by malmal16 6 years ago
malmal16
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 6 years ago
padfo0t
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DoubleXMinus 6 years ago
DoubleXMinus
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 6 years ago
brittwaller
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mikelwallace 6 years ago
mikelwallace
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ophs236 6 years ago
ophs236
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
wingnut2280Conspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30