The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Debate_King1475
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

reason+intent=morality

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 1 vote the winner is...
Debate_King1475
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 75656
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

action+intent=moral or immoral consequence

cause+effect=logic
logic+experience=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic)

i push you of a Cliff on purpose has immoral consequences, like feeling bad about it, getting locked up etc..

feeding your kid deadly poison to make it healthy is unresonable, based on the logic that is the poison is not healthy for the kid, Thus its illogical, wrong, immoral, unresonable, belief, evil, living inside ones head.. evil=live
Debate_King1475

Con

Your intent is irrelevent as to whether what you do is moral or immoral. Your intent may be to do good but does that make it moral if the act is wrong? Intent is a start but intent by itself is not morality. I don't know if by reason you mean logic or your explanation for doing something. If it is logic then you almost contradict yourself. Reason is objective feeling but intent is subjective feeling toward a situation, which is personally trying to do good even if it is wrong.

Objective think + Subjunctive think = morality

there are only two ways to think. Objectively or subjectively

So

Objective think + Subjuntive think = All the types of thinking

So, via substitution you could say


All the types of thinking = morality

It would be important to define all types of thinking. All types of thinking would be ones logical thinking and personal feelings. That is what you say morality consists of. So, you are saying that morality of a code of what is right or wrong that changes from person to person since subjective think is ones personal opinion. You are saying that morality changes and by definition, morality does not change. If you are confused about the little bit of basic substitution and math that I did, I would be happy to explain.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

wrong=belief=immoral

if your intent is good then its not immoral

reason and intent is morality, if i cant tell right from wrong i cant be immoral, and if i dont have intent i cant be immoral, like a rock cant be immoral or moral

reason=subjective=false and truth=information=mental
logic=objective=true=matter=physical

thinking is not objective

morality is absolute, as logic is the Measurement of resonable, Thus its illogical to feed my kid battery acid and immoral, as its not healthy for the kid, cause and effect
Debate_King1475

Con

Morality is whether something is right or wrong. That being said people either do good or bad. Whether they do good or bad is not dependent or reliant on ones intent. Intent is just a mere way of obtaining peace of mind for ones actions and it is not actually what makes up morality. It is basically a comfort booster.

Whether you personally know whether it is right or wrong does not excuse you from morality. You are trying to imply that if you cannot know if something that is right or wrong that it excuses you from upholding morality. You cannot excuse yourself from morality because morality applies to the set of ideas that everyone agrees on and not what each individual person agrees on.

Also, only living being can have morality. You used the example of a rock. Whether something is morally exceptable that means the action is either right or wrong. A rock cannot perform an action because it is not alive. The rock arguement is not a good morality for intent because a morality does not even exist for a rock.

Also, you contradicted yourself in the last sentence. You said that morality is absolute. But if morality is also based on one's intents, which changes from person to person, then how is that absolute.

Can I also make an example of why you saying "if your intent is good then its not immoral"

If a man think that killing certain types ethnic groups of people is ok according to his intent. Then, by your definition that is a moral action. Killing all those people according to you is moral. Explain that.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

m8.. so your argument is that rocks can be evil, cool

good=right=moral=logical=resonable

the right way, is the moral way, is the logical way

the only Sin is unawarness

you do not determine right and wrong, in any way

a rock has no intent.. it cant intend evil, which is intended..

logic is the Measurement of resonable.. logic is absolute

belief=Be lie
Debate_King1475

Con

I am not understanding what you are trying to say. My argument is not that a rock is evil. Also, you are getting off subject. You are also not defending your previous argument or arguing against my arguments. You are also not formulating thoughts that the reader and I cannot understand. I ask that you organize your thoughts before you say them in order to help explain what you are trying to prove/explain. Also, from some of your sparatic thought I would like for you to explain.

"the only Sin is unawarness"
We are not talking about Sin what are you trying to prove with this

"you do not determine right and wrong, in any way"
This is simply incorrect. We choose our actions and those action are either right or wrong. Therefore, we choose/determine right or wrong by our actions.

"belief=Be lie"
I do not know what you are trying to say hear

"a rock has no intent.. it cant intend evil, which is intended.."
Why are you talking about rocks?

You have basically avoided all of my statements from round one and have introduced points that do not prove your side of the case correct.

My argument is that intent is not morality. Reason is correlated to morality. I am not denying that. But, you have not given me even an iota of evidence that prooves that intent is part of morality.

So, this is want I would like for you to do next round for the debate

1. You sentences to formulate you thoughts.
2. Do not make a bunch of independent thoughts without explaining what you mean by those thoughts
3. Try not to make tangents that do not relate to the debate
4. Explain why intent is correlated to morality
5. Rebuttal my points from round 2, which you did not rebuttal and left untouched

If you do these things then I think that we can have a good Rounds 4/5 for the rest of the debate. And I would like to thank you for this challenge of the debate that you have presented. And I wish you good luck on rounds 4/5.







Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

i counter your stuff.. your lack of complrehension is on you buddy, this is childishly simple

so you choose your actions not right and wrong..

remove intent and no moral or immoral action can exist.. your assertions, lead you nowhere

i made my case, its for you to learn the English language
Debate_King1475

Con

I understand that I apparently have a lack of comprehension. But you still have explained why you need intent for morality. You are restating the same statement and not explaining why it works and you are ignoring why I say that intent does not compose of morality and merely just made a statement with no facts to back it up. Also, you chooses your actions. They can either be right or wrong. Since your actions determine whether you do right or wrong then you choose the thing (actions) that make up right or wrong. You are ignoring my statement and merely making your original statement, while completely ignoring what I said.

1. You sentences to formulate you thoughts.
2. Do not make a bunch of independent thoughts without explaining what you mean by those thoughts
3. Try not to make tangents that do not relate to the debate
4. Explain why intent is correlated to morality
5. Rebuttal my points from round 2, which you did not rebuttal and left untouched

The onlt thing from this list that you actually did was. Nothing. You did not do a single thing that I said. You are just putting little thought bubbles and you are not explaining why you think they are correct. You told me to learn English and I have a lack of comprehension, which is hypocritical because you could not even do 1 of the five thing that I told you to do (this violated #3 going on tangents). You did not give me an explanation for why intent is composed of morality. You are justing saying it as if it is fact with no actual reason why you think it is that way. And also you have left my points from round 2 untouched.

Also, your arguement can be left defenseless with this statement. If a man think that killing certain types ethnic groups of people is ok according to his intent. Then, by your definition that is a moral action. Killing all those people according to you is moral. Explain that.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

any example of morality is suffecient, take out the intent and there are no moral or immoral action

if i didnt push you of a Cliff on purpose would it then be immoral?
Debate_King1475

Con

My opponent has given up and has made up a scenario that is moral and shoved the words on purpose in there trying to make a point. He did not answer a single thing that I asked to answer and all of my points from before stand as they are. Thank you for this debate. You did a great. I wish you good luck on future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
morality is non physical..
Posted by Debate_King1475 2 years ago
Debate_King1475
Cowboy0108 I would like to accept you intent + consequence=morality debate. I think it would be interesting.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
morality is non physical

and its math not philosophy
Posted by Cowboy0108 2 years ago
Cowboy0108
I am not sure I follow your R1. However, I would like to argue that intent + consequence=morality. I am considering taking this debate, but I am not used to philosophical debates.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
vi_spexDebate_King1475Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped most of Con's arguments. Pro, who has the BOP, failed to back up any of the thoughts he/she had. As he/she did not provide any rational basis for his/her ideas, Con wins.