The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

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: 9/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 772 times Debate No: 80269
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




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?


"is it right to smash your computer with a hammer to turn it on" Only an idiot would do this. You might smash it with a hammer if it's broken, but not to activate it. Plus, this has nothing to do with "morality = right + intent"

"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.
Debate Round No. 1


logical=right=eating an apple to stay healthy


right is not undefined



"1+1=2" what exactly is the point of this kindergarten equation?

"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:
Debate Round No. 2


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



"logic = cause + effect" So I'm assuming this isn't a mathematical equation, but rather "cause/effect is logical'

"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.)
Debate Round No. 3


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



"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"

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...
Debate Round No. 4


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..



logic = morality // logic = cause and effect

"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)
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
logic is true not truth, knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past, now is true

there is no logic in fantasy

you have no intent without emotion

morality=constrasting self with others using thought and emotion
Posted by triangle.128k 2 years ago
right + emotion = morality, you have emotion not killing a child. right = right, what is right. morality = right + emotion, intent is nothing of morality.
Posted by triangle.128k 2 years ago
@tajshar2k logic = knowledge, knowledge is not a thing, we can't cut open a head and pour out knowledge. knowledge = imaginary, logic = imaginary = knowledge + evidence. logic is absolute, determined by evidence. Evidence = object + interpretation, interpretation = 0. 0 = absolute = logic.
Posted by ZBestDebater 2 years ago
If you could please be a bit more clear on what you're trying to debate, i'd accept. Knowing you, I might just walk into the wrong debate.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
I may enter this debate later..... until then, I'll see if someone is planning on entering this debate besides me.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
Oh vi spex, DDO would not be the same without you.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
existence is absolute
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
but immoral=logic logic is defined as absolute.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
atlest not like that
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i am not immoral
No votes have been placed for this debate.