Debate Rounds (5)
deadly poisonous mushroom=immoral to give my kid
healthy apple=moral to give to my kid
if all apples became poisonous today, and we were all aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples to keep them healthy? and even if we didnt want the kids to be healthy, would it be right to give kids apples to eat(morality)?
"The term "morality" can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specifies conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
So now that we have these definitions, I'm going to explain a couple issues I have with the resolution.
1) The resolution is incorrectly absolute.
While my opponent may agree with the second definition, to say that morality=right+intent means that's the only definition of morality we're ever going to have. Morality can also be a descriptive term used to evaluate the actions of people or persons by moral systems accepted by their society. So it's not just the normative description, morality can also be subjective.
In fact, I'd argue that the position that appoints a moral system to everyone is still just a subjective moral system that people can agree on sometimes.
2) Disney was right.
Sorry I said I'd be serious.
2) Following personal interests is the true way to unlocking morality.
If giving a kid a poisonous Apple is fun, then give the kid the poisonous Apple. There's no higher power or upper moral system judging you for your actions. My opponent implies that this is my true. For example, he would probably argue that killing innocent people is wrong.
But what is it that makes an action right? And why does that reason matter?
The only thing we know for sure is that we have personal interests, and we want to follow them. If killing an innocent person furthers your goals as a person, then go for it.
Thank you for reading.
morality=reason+intent=right+intent=contrasting self with others using thought and emotion
right is right
morality is subjective, but like math absolute, guided by objective
is it right to give kids poisonous apples to keep them healthy? and even if you dont want a kid to be healthy, is it right to feed the kid a poisonous apple?
reason is not matter, but what does math matter?
killing is anti social
Okay, just going to do a defense/rebuttal from the last round. And I'll give a summary of the debate so far at the end to make sure we're all clear on what's going on.
1) Subjective morality.
So here's what my opponent is saying. He says morality is subjective (determined by individuals, societies, groups of people, etc.). However he said it's guided by absolutes. His example is a mathematical equation, which doesn't logically follow.
He also says moral decisions should be based on thought and emotion, which is entirely subjective. There's no objectivity about that statement. Some days I think babies are the cutest things ever, and some days I get so angry I want to punch one in the throat really really hard. Does it become right because my emotional state changed?
I think so, and my opponent might think so (jury is still out on that one for now), but that means that morality is not absolute. Because punching a baby in the throat was wrong one day then right another day.
Or to use a more tame example, lying. Is it okay to lie in some scenarios? Or is it always wrong? Is it okay if you're trying to protect someone? The problem is that in order for you to say that it's abolutely or objectively wrong, then you have to agree that the underground railway for slaves was moraly wrong, even if it helped innocent lives.
If you try to draw a line where lying is okay if it helps someone, then you essentially make it subjective, because who decides if you're actually helping someone? You could be trying to help someone but end up causing them emotional distress. Kind of like the example my opponent brought up about the poisonous apples. You're trying to help, but it may not be the right thing to do according to the person receiving the action.
2) Killing is anti-social
Yes it is, and that's why I approve of it in some scenarios. Basically what I'm saying is that my opponent hasn't proven that to be a bad thing. Some people are anti-social, and a lot of them are handling your money as accountants. So far, being anti-social doesn't look like that bad of a deal.
3) Questions without answers
Here's what the debate has been so far. I have made a lot of definitive statements using well-researched definitions and fairly solid reasoning. My opponent has made some statements (some of these statements being contradictory), and all of them are backed up by a question without an answer. I know it's supposed to be a rhetorical thing, but my opponent needs to provide strong answers for his side to be considered, especially without the use of evidence to any degree.
4) Math is irrelevant
Allow me to go over this real quick. I understand why my opponent likes math. It's absolute, logical, and simple. However, in the question of morality, you can't relate math to the principles we're debating. If you do, there must be a very clear and well-stated connection that is not breakable.
I can say that puppies are adorable because 1+3=4, but that doesn't logically follow. That's not a legitimate reason to back up that point.
Sumarry: My opponent makes the statement that morality is subjective and absolute but doesn't explain the concept. I've thoroughly explained my concepts, and even if I haven't, I'm sure my opponent will let me know in the next round. I would also like to point out that my second point in my first round was dropped in the last round. The only thing my opponent said that sort of addressed it is that killing is anti-social, but as I've pointed out, he hasn't proven that to be a bad thing.
Good luck next round!
math is subjective
how is it immoral to feed your kid an apple that dosnt exist? try a poisonous apple
is right wrong because wrong is reason? stupid question
when is it healthy for you to punch the innocent defenceless baby in the throat?
logical is right, wrong is illogical.. it can be logical to lie to a person that has gun to my head
anti social means no kids, no progress..
natures prime operate is progress, anti force being preservation
right is right.. not wrong, is absolute
maybe the equation 1+3=4 reminds you of something positive about puppies and so its true to you..
killing is bad because it has no end, like love for money.. and evil has consequences..
any true example of morality is sufficient to define it
Thank you for reading.
Morality is subjective, meaning it's based on the opinions of persons or groups of people. Therefore morality=anything.
Thanks for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SolonKR 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: In comments.
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.