morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)
Debate Rounds (5)
reason=logic+experience of it=right+wrong
is it right to smash your computer with a hammer to turn it on?
in which case do you decide that it is moral to feed your kid a deadly poisonous mushroom?
is granny in the wheelchair evil because she couldnt get her cat out the burning apartment so it burned alive, or do you feel sry for granny for losing her cat in such a terrible accident?
"in which case do you decide that it's moral to feed your child a poisonous mushroom" Once again, if the parent is a total moron, they would do this.
"is granny evil" maybe not in the burning apartment sense, but maybe a serial killer? Anyways, where's the right or intent in this case?
Could you maybe give an example of a moral action? How would we know if something someone's doing is right?
Also, in a mathematical sense "morality = right + intent", you're saying "morality = right". Since 'right = morality', let's let both of those be 'x'. You're saying "x = x + 4" (where "4" is intent), this isn't mathematically possible (but beside the point).
I await your response, vi_spex.
logical=right=eating an apple to stay healthy
right is not undefined
"right is not undefined" what do you mean by this? If this is a counter to "morality=right" "x = x + 4", I was using "x" as an example. I never said morality/right is undefined.
Also, is the equation "morality = logic + right + intent" or something? Whatever.
I'm not sure if you answered my question of "How do we know if something someone's doing is right?" How do we tell a bad action from a good action? Immanuel Kant (a philosopher) might answer "As long as it is a Categorical Imperative" in which how do we know if something's a Categorical Imperative (something we must follow at all costs).
Immanuel Kant: https://en.wikipedia.org...
2 is 1 and 1, morality is right and intent
intent is also morality
evil is bad, wrong, illogical
to contrast, feeding your kid battery acid to keep him healthy is illogical
"illogical = evil" So if Bob lights a building on fire because he finds it fun, isn't this logical? Bob lights a building on fire because he enjoys the panicking of the civilians. Since "evil = illogical", and "logic = moral", Bob is doing the moral thing, since it's logical. (Hey, this actually sounds a bit like John Stuart Mill's philosophy; saying along the lines of "it's good because it makes him happy") (although Rule Ultiniarism would get in the way of this)
Some evils can be logical. (Example: Someone [Pinky and the Brain] wants world domination) Pinky and the Brain's motive is logical, as who wouldn't want to reign supreme over the lands?
But back to the point, what about Intent? How can we know if a certain action is moral? You use simple examples to my counters. Morality can change depending on situation. Good intent may lead to negative ends. If this is the case, how are we to know exactly what is moral when?
(PS maybe the parent is feeding the child battery acid because she's evil like that.)
its not morally right to light fire to a building, but the example of it being fun for bob is like, it would be illogical for a guy trying to commit suicide to jump from a tiny hill
jumping from the edge of mountain isnt necessarily immoral or illogical either
illogical isnt necesssarily evil, becuase it takes intent to be evil
any true example of morality is sufficient to define morality
I dunno... Bob likes arson. How is this illogical?
"jumping from the edge of mountain isnt necessarily immoral or illogical either"
Suicide is immoral. Logically, too much anger, sadness, and despair could lead one to commit suicide, but it would be against our purpose of existence. We shouldn't just give up our life like this! We all have so much to live for!
"any true example of morality is sufficient to define morality"
Then what IS morality? Aside from the "apples are healthy" example... What is moral for us to do? You seem to be avoiding this question. What exactly determines how we should act? What makes an action "moral"? You say "because it's logical", but Bob's arson is perfectly logical for him (because he's happy committing arson), yet this is immoral.
If someone was trapped in a burning building (such as granny's cat) would you save it, despite that fact that it may be too late? There's still the chance you can get the cat to the Hospital, and save it. Is it logical to run into a building that's burning to save granny's cat, despite you're risking your own life? Not really, you could get yourself killed, but you're risking your life to save the cat. According to your logic, you probably wouldn't do this, as it is illogical to save a cat in exchange for your own life.
If you disagree with my example of saving the cat, then answer this question: WHAT MAKES AN ACTION MORAL?
I await your final response...
morality IS, right AND intent
logic is the measurement of resonable, right is reason
the action of clicking the lighter... is logical to make a flame with it..
"the action of clicking the lighter... is logical to make a flame with it.. "
Nice, Bob has a lighter. Wouldn't it be logical for Bob to BURN DOWN THE BUILDING?!?!?!?!
A logical action, as you say, adds some form of morality into said action. But it is against the law to commit arson! So what is right? What is moral? You can't have right without reason, yet you need reason to make right!
Pro didn't agree nor disagree with my "saving granny's cat" example, nor gave a valid point as to exactly what intent makes right. I'll repeat my Round 1 example: "morality = right. Let's let 'x' be "morality". "x = x + 4 (4 is intent)"
What I am saying here is that it doesn't matter what 'x' is. Since "morality = right", we can make it "x = x" Adding 4 to x does not make x! This appears to be what vi_spex is trying to say, but who knows?
vi_spex, you are also avoiding my questions. If you are answering them, I cannot see your point you are trying to make, if any! You fail to acknowledge my arguments, allowing me to refute your irrelevant/weak claims!
I'd say I have this in the bag. vi_spex, next time we debate, make sure your points are clearly presented (I mean spell it out for your opponent, as it may have made sense for you, it seemed irrelevant to me). You bring up the lighter, but didn't we already discuss that Bob is an arsonist?
Cause and effect: Bob has lighter -> Bob lights up apartment -> People scream and run in panic -> Bob is happy
You talked a decent game, yet, all arguments have their flaws somewhere. Even if the 9,738 word argument looks intimidating. To be honest, I was intimidated at first, but I knew I could refute your stance, and I did. Good game. May the voters choose the victor. (PS I have not conceded in that last paragraph. Just pointing out any argument can be refuted, it just takes the knowledge and courage to do so, which I had)
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.