the golden rule in application is not clear
Debate Rounds (3)
the rule itself may be clear, but the application of the rule isn't always.
maybe instead of disorganized mess of ideas as i gave in the past, i will give a hypothetical.
for example. intervention v deferrence. John is doing cocaine, and only dabbles in it and views it as nondebateably harmless in the bigger picture. Bob thinks any cocaine use is going too far, and is not debatable to say otherwise. Bob personally would want someone to invervene if he was doing cocaine. on the other hand, Bob also would want people to respect his wishes on things he sees as debateably okay or nondebateable.
does Bob intervene, based on the fact that he'd want intervened with on cocaine use, especially given he personally sees it as undebateably not okay? or does he respect John's wishes given John must at least view cocaine use as at least debateably to nondebateably okay?
reliance on the golden rule doesn't really direct how to approach it. if you take one option, it undermines the other considerations. the rule admittedly gives you food for thought and directs you in a laudable way in general, but how to respond isn't so clear cut.
First, Let me point out that my position as con DOES NOT mean I believe the golden rule is a sound basis for moral decisions. My position as con merely means I believe it is clear in application. That is to say, in any given situation it is clear what one should do if one wishes to stick to the golden rule.
Now that the purpose of this debate is made clear, allow me to state for the record what the golden rule actually says:
Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
I will now address my oponents example.
John believes the following:
1) Cocaine use is okay morally
Bob believes the following:
1) Cocaine use is not okay morally
2) if he was doing cocaine, he would want someone to intervene.
3) If he were doing something he thought was okay morallyhe would not want anyone to intervene.
However, there is some information missing that, if filled in, would make the issue much more clear. To illustrate, let us bring in a third character named Paul.
Paul believes the following:
1) Smoking cigarettes is not okay for health reasons.
Now, let us say Bob has the following attributes:
4) Believes cocaine is not okay for health reasons.
5) Believes smoking cigarettes is okay morally.
6) Believes smoking cigarettes is not okay for health reasons.
7) Smokes cigarettes (is addicted).
8) Believes Paul (should/should) not intervene in his smoking habit for health reasons.
Depending on what Bob would want Paul to do on to him in number eight will determine what Bob should do on to John regarding cocaine.
You see, the percieved issue was based on a lack of information. Note that I did not change any of pros original premises, nor are any new premises inconsistent with pros original ones.
Pro must do one of the following to show that my argument is invalid:
1) Demonstrate one or more of my new premises is inconsistent with pros original ones.
2) Demonstrate that knowing the answer to number eight would not necessarily give a good answer as to whether Bob should intervene with John.
3) Demonstrate that the answer to number eight does logically follow from the other premises.
Back to you pro.
con was very verbose but seems to basically say what if the person bob who doesn't like cocaine smoked cigarettes? would he want intervened against? that, according to con, should answer the cocaine question.
first, cigarettes and cocaine are different. even if both are bad for health reasons, cocaine is considered worse. so even if he didn't want intervened with cigs, he might be open to a different outcome with cocaine.
second, con says bob is against smoking. that means regardless of whether he wants intervened against, he thinks smoking is wrong, AND thinks it is a not debateable point. in general, bob doesn't mind if he's intervened with with things that are non debateble harmful.
i do admit i am having a hard time organizing my thoughts on this debate, i dont know what it is about it.
The point I was making is that Bob must ask himself what he would think about Pauls interference with his smoking habit if the reason for said hypothetical interference was given to be a health motivated reason as opposed to a morally motivated one. The reason for making this point is that pro HAS NOT mentioned what Bob feels about health-motivated interference.
The perception of cigarettes being better healthwise than cocaine, or at least less bad, is totally irrelevant UNLESS my opponent states that Bob would be okay with interference for major health issues but not okay with interference with minor health issues.
I ask my opponent to please state Bobs opinion on health motivated interference, just as my opponent has already stated Bobs opinion on morally motivated interference in her opening arguments (point 3 of my argument) Is Bob for it? Against it? Thinks it should be done only in severe situations?
My opponents second argument is much easier to dismiss. In it my opponent states the following (copy pasted from round two):
"con says bob is against smoking. that means regardless of whether he wants intervened against, he thinks smoking is wrong, AND thinks it is a not debateable point."
Simply put, this is a lie. I NEVER said Bob consideres smoking cigarettes to be morally wrong. In fact I said the EXACT OPPOSITE in point 5, something that is completely obvious to anyone who reads my argument. Dishonesty will get you nowhere, pro. Voters notice dishonesty and they don't like it.
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
I don't like red words =(
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.