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

right+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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 258 times Debate No: 81300
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

right is in contrast with wrong, if there is no wrong there is no right

poison=unhealthy(logic)
right(logical)=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy
wrong(immoral)=eat poisonous things to stay healthy

cause+effect=logic
Stupidape

Con

You seem to be confusing good and evil with correct and incorrect.

Good = moral deeds
bad = immoral deeds

Correct = turning light bulb to the left to loosen
incorrect = turning light bulb to the right to loosen
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

morality=right=resonable=logical

right=right
Stupidape

Con

A logical response is not always a moral response. An illogical response is not always immoral. A mother hen attacking an inanimate object is not logical nor is it immoral.

A series of clues may lead to the logical deduction that a person is guilty. Nevertheless additional unperceived clues may latter present themselves after the verdict. In this case the logical approach was the immoral approach.

The primal instinct to protect oneself is not logical. Yet it is considered a morally sound behavior.

Drinking alcohol, a poison, is considered just by most cultures.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

a mother hen attacking an inanimate object is wrong, illogical

belief is illogical

self preservation is moral, if a little fly attacks you with bites you dont just let it eat you slowly.. illogical

any true example of morality is sufficient to define it

on the path of being predictable, a demon is riding a bicycle
Stupidape

Con

Primal instincts are not logical. An inanimate object could be a threat to a mother hen. You contradicted your self.

You stated that self preservation is moral. Yet, is it wrong for a mother hen to attack an inanimate object. By attacking the inanimate object she is demonstrating self preservation.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

a mother hen attacking an inanimate object is wrong, illogical

belief is illogical

self preservation is moral, if a little fly attacks you with bites you dont just let it eat you slowly.. illogical

any true example of morality is sufficient to define it

on the path of being predictable, a demon is riding a bicycle
Stupidape

Con

Pro makes redundant argument.

Pro's statement about demon riding a bicycle is non sequitur.

Pro makes statement right + intent = morality. Yet, how does the intent matter? If a person gets hit by a car will the intent effect the outcome? No, the same amount of damage will be done regardless of intent.

"an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness"not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it." utilitarianism.com

"Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive." utilitarianism.com

Intent is irrelevant.

Happiness - unhappiness = morality

http://www.utilitarianism.com...
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

morality presupposes intent, rocks are not immoral, yet a retard can do something wrong but not be aware that its wrong and so not immoral, because he came like that ye..
explains my previus deduction, reason+intent=morality

so there is no moral difference to you passing out by random chance and running some one over in your car, then to get yourself drunk and speed like a mad man and then aim for some one and simply run them over.. laughing, even when you crash you are just laughing on full display and everyone sees it... no difference there

so to you, a rock can be immoral, and you can get an angry at a rock as you would the mad man driver lauging... becasue the rock is so immoral
Stupidape

Con

A rock is an inanimate object incapable of actions. A deed is judged by its happiness - unhappiness. Since an inanimate object is incapable of deeds they must be except from morality.

As for the car and drinking example. Drinking is an action within itself. In this case drinking caused greater unhappiness than happiness, thus is immoral.

Driving a car is also an action. Perhaps the action of driving cars cause greater unhappiness than happiness and thus is immoral.

Mentally handicapped humans are capable of deeds. Yet, like an animal lack the mental capacity to be judged for their actions. Therefore, a ward or guardian is assigned to these people. The guardian's job is protect the mentally handicapped and protect others from the handicapped. The morality of the deeds of the mentally challenged are now transferred to the guardian.

So if a mentally challenged person breaks a valuable antique the accountability falls upon the guardian.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
@ Mr_Bucket actually, vi_spex likes to post the same debate most of the time, this being no different (I also debated vi_spex over "morality = right + intent"). Also, I like how Con used John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism philosophy.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
absolutes=existence
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
no knowledge=absolute
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
knowledge=logical
belief=illogical
Posted by Mr_bucket 1 year ago
Mr_bucket
This one actually makes sense so i can't argue
No votes have been placed for this debate.