The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RedSun
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

morality=right+intent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/29/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 896 times Debate No: 80313
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (62)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

morality=not doing the wrong thing, so doing the right thing, to contrast with there being a wrong thing to do in order for me to do the right thing

how could i do the right thing if there is no wrong thing for me to do?
RedSun

Con

I accept this debate, vi_spex. It is an honor to debate you.

The biggest problem with these unsubstantiated assertions is the fact that you are *completely* ignoring the possibility of a middle ground. There can be neutral sides of morality. To comprehend my argument better I must substantially provide definitions.

Good-"Possessing or displaying moral virtue"

Bad-"Morally depraved; wicked"

Neutral-"Having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features"

Now that you are aware of these definitions, I will get to my argument.

Take for example someone who is uncommitted to a moral act. What if someone is just standing there and doing nothing. He isn't doing the right thing, because standing there is not beneficial in most situations. But he is most likely not doing any "wrong" either. So his morally neutral behavior isn't "doing the wrong thing", but is technically "not doing the wrong thing".
You are assuming that *everything* that isn't morally wrong
is morally right, which as I have shown, is false.

Your argument is that morality is "not doing the wrong thing", when actually morality is "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Morality is a subjective measurement on your behavior. Not all morality is "good", as your claim suggests. This is the equivalent of saying that the word height translates to tall, when it is really a measurement (this time it's objective) of how tall or short you are.

And as for your last claim. If there were no more morally good acts to be committed, the neutral side would become the "good". You could easily compare morally bad acts to morally neutral acts. Being neutral would be considered "good" since a) it would be the only thing to compare "bad" to. b) People would believe that the absence of bad behavior is better than bad behavior.

I have refuted all of your claims, and I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

morality dosnt exist without right and intent, no possibility involved

is it right not to act when you have the power to? not taking action might be the wrong thing to do

he is making the choice to stand there while he can react, so he is doing something

you are not tall without height

there is no wrong or right action when its neutral, because there is no intent involved

RedSun

Con

RedSun forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
RedSun

Con

RedSun forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RedSun

Con

RedSun forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

..............lelelelel
RedSun

Con

RedSun forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
You are confused. If you are afraid of death, you should not eat the poisoned chicken. And predestined has nothing to do with a creator or any other force controlling your actions. This is a common misconception most novices make. It is you who controls your actions. It's merely the choices you make that are predestined by your past experiences.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you said all actions are predestined

and you said.. I don't fear death, therefore it's not illogical to eat a poisoned chicken.. and so it follows if you were afraid of death you should eat the poisoned chicken
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Who said anything about a creator choosing my morals? And just because I don't fear death, doesn't mean I go looking for it. I simply do not let the fear of dying stop me from doing anything.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
and having fear is all the reason to keep living.. so the more fear the better life is or i should kill myself, thats a nice moral predistined code your creator choose for you to write, you without fault
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i mean dont fear death
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
I don't fear death. Ask someone who does!
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
so because you fear death you should commit suicide?
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Why? Because you fear death. Then for you its illogical.
I don't fear death, therefore it's not illogical to eat a poisoned chicken.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
its illogical to eat a chicken i just poisoned
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Why is it illogical to eat pork? Or drink wine? Or rape girls? Or kill?
Who's logic decides what is reality? Religion? Government? Which countries government?
Does the majority decide or do they just go along with those in power?
There are too many different opinions and beliefs for objective morality to exist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.