Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

"Should" vs "Should not"

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 9:47:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Should" or "should not" type debates....

I believe they are futile and are generally not productive.

Does anyone agree?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 9:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
For matters of Policy I don't see a better wording for the resolution.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 9:55:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 9:53:11 PM, thett3 wrote:
For matters of Policy I don't see a better wording for the resolution.

You could rephrase the current resolution as "Further expansion/development of the US space program is a desirable course of action."

Either way, I think the current HS debate resolution is silly--especially the nov evidence they're making us use.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:04:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.

I have to agree with Mestari. That's why LD resolutions often include ought, and policy ones include should.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:07:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.
(sighs) 1. It appears that only you can judge what is semantics; the rest of us cannot

2. How is Mestari agreeing with you?
You basically wrote="Should and should not forces a discussion on morality"
Mestari questiosn that and states that "should"-->desirability, desirability-->/morality; rather than, ought is to be used (which I somewhat agree with)...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:13:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:07:08 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.
(sighs) 1. It appears that only you can judge what is semantics; the rest of us cannot

2. How is Mestari agreeing with you?
You basically wrote="Should and should not forces a discussion on morality"
Mestari questiosn that and states that "should"-->desirability, desirability-->/morality; rather than, ought is to be used (which I somewhat agree with)...

lol You have a very unhealthy obsession with my posts. Its seems you never fail to reply to one in a slightly snide and accusatory attitude.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:14:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:13:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:07:08 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.
(sighs) 1. It appears that only you can judge what is semantics; the rest of us cannot

2. How is Mestari agreeing with you?
You basically wrote="Should and should not forces a discussion on morality"
Mestari questiosn that and states that "should"-->desirability, desirability-->/morality; rather than, ought is to be used (which I somewhat agree with)...

lol You have a very unhealthy obsession with my posts. Its seems you never fail to reply to one in a slightly snide and accusatory attitude.

000ike, running away from the main point of the post....as usual...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:16:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

Should implies practicality. Practicality is just one way to determine whats moral.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 10:25:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 9:47:35 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
"Should" or "should not" type debates....

I believe they are futile and are generally not productive.

Does anyone agree?

Nope.

You do realize even arguing that we should not have these kind of debates is arguing that something should happen.

Kinda undercuts its self.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:10:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:16:47 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

Should implies practicality. Practicality is just one way to determine what's moral.

Perhaps, it's the 'morality' element that is sticking in my craw.

"Should same sex marriage be legal? Should drugs be legal?"

Most of those kinds of debates are on subjects that I would like to debate or discuss.... But I have no interest in the 'moral' aspects. So, the 'should' verses the 'should not' angle results in my non-participation.

As a realist, I would rather focus on "what is" and "what is not."

"What are some good reasons for legalizing drugs vs. what are the resons for NOT legalizing drugs?" etc.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 11:49:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's not a debate, Chuz. "What are some reasons to do X" does not contradict "What are some reasons not to do x." There's no disagreement, just a brainstorming session. Vague, too cowardly to think straight. Listing off reasons has no value until you can determine which of those reasons shall rule the day.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 11:50:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
And, notably, it still covers moral topics. All the reasons are going to be based on one theory of morality or another. It just doesn't do a good job of covering them
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:35:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:10:04 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:16:47 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

Should implies practicality. Practicality is just one way to determine what's moral.

Perhaps, it's the 'morality' element that is sticking in my craw.

"Should same sex marriage be legal? Should drugs be legal?"

Most of those kinds of debates are on subjects that I would like to debate or discuss.... But I have no interest in the 'moral' aspects. So, the 'should' verses the 'should not' angle results in my non-participation.

As a realist, I would rather focus on "what is" and "what is not."

"What are some good reasons for legalizing drugs vs. what are the resons for NOT legalizing drugs?" etc.

Chuz, every debate is about morality. Morality just means "right or wrong", so when you debate a resolution that says something *should* be done, you're debating whether its right or wrong to do it, which is a moral debate.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:20:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 11:49:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not a debate, Chuz. "What are some reasons to do X" does not contradict "What are some reasons not to do x." There's no disagreement, just a brainstorming session. Vague, too cowardly to think straight. Listing off reasons has no value until you can determine which of those reasons shall rule the day.

I admit that I could have worded my position a little more clearly... There is a "disagreement" in effect when the issue is say something like "Space Exploration" and instead of framing the debate as "should we" or "should we not" continue space exploration, we debate it's necessity or its merits.

This leaves it up to each person individually to decide for themselves (perhaps privately) about whether we "should" or "should not" continue.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 5:20:51 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/10/2011 11:49:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not a debate, Chuz. "What are some reasons to do X" does not contradict "What are some reasons not to do x." There's no disagreement, just a brainstorming session. Vague, too cowardly to think straight. Listing off reasons has no value until you can determine which of those reasons shall rule the day.

I admit that I could have worded my position a little more clearly... There is a "disagreement" in effect when the issue is say something like "Space Exploration" and instead of framing the debate as "should we" or "should we not" continue space exploration, we debate it's necessity or its merits.
If we must, we should, if doing so has more merit than not, we should. There's no substantial difference in the second, and the first is only additive, not subtractive.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:42:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:16:47 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

Should implies practicality. Practicality is just one way to determine whats moral.

Practicality does not really determine what is moral. Morality, I believe, is inherently impractical. I understand that desirability may lead to a utilitarian impact calculus, but that is the extent of the moral debate in a should topic most of the time.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:45:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.

We obviously don't agree. And you can't debate without semantics. I do not know why people in this community frown upon semantics when it is the only way to determine a terminus for debate. We can only have an argument if we share a common understanding of what words mean.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:47:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:35:50 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:10:04 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:16:47 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

Should implies practicality. Practicality is just one way to determine what's moral.

Perhaps, it's the 'morality' element that is sticking in my craw.

"Should same sex marriage be legal? Should drugs be legal?"

Most of those kinds of debates are on subjects that I would like to debate or discuss.... But I have no interest in the 'moral' aspects. So, the 'should' verses the 'should not' angle results in my non-participation.

As a realist, I would rather focus on "what is" and "what is not."

"What are some good reasons for legalizing drugs vs. what are the resons for NOT legalizing drugs?" etc.

Chuz, every debate is about morality. Morality just means "right or wrong", so when you debate a resolution that says something *should* be done, you're debating whether its right or wrong to do it, which is a moral debate.

That begs the question, if morality is just "right or wrong" then can an objective morality exist? And if one doesn't, how can we look towards morality in space?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:50:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:45:25 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.

We obviously don't agree. And you can't debate without semantics. I do not know why people in this community frown upon semantics when it is the only way to determine a terminus for debate. We can only have an argument if we share a common understanding of what words mean.

It's quite obvious that 000ike doesn't like giving complete thoughts anyway...and yet when I point out his fallacies, he starts laughing and somehow assuming that I have some testy and accusatory tone...Oh well, it just goes to show that sometimes you don't know when 000ike is joking or being serious, but I suspect the more serious comments to be jests, and the more laughable ones (like his comment above) to be serious (in intention)...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 12:07:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
That begs the question, if morality is just "right or wrong" then can an objective morality exist? And if one doesn't, how can we look towards morality in space?

Objective morality is just as debatable as any other topic. I'm not sure how this disagrees with my position.

If morality means "right or wrong", then we'd have to figure out a way to determine whats right or wrong. Some people would argue that the "right" action is the most practical one. Some would argue its the one that respects individual rights. Either way, these are just (debatable) ways to determine whats moral. That means any debate resolution that implies a practical approach (like one that uses the word Should) becomes a moral debate, just like any topic that uses the word Ought.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 12:30:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 12:07:46 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
That begs the question, if morality is just "right or wrong" then can an objective morality exist? And if one doesn't, how can we look towards morality in space?

Objective morality is just as debatable as any other topic. I'm not sure how this disagrees with my position.

If morality means "right or wrong", then we'd have to figure out a way to determine whats right or wrong. Some people would argue that the "right" action is the most practical one. Some would argue its the one that respects individual rights. Either way, these are just (debatable) ways to determine whats moral. That means any debate resolution that implies a practical approach (like one that uses the word Should) becomes a moral debate, just like any topic that uses the word Ought.

My point was that if whatever is "right or wrong" is a moral or immoral action from a purely practical sense, then you cannot have an objective morality. Thus, morality would not be a viable way to weigh the round. I believe "should" implies more of a policy-option approach that takes into account the political and legal preferences of those enacting it. This is not an inherently amoral topic, but the morality aspect is precluded by legality and politics.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 2:02:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 12:30:20 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/11/2011 12:07:46 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
That begs the question, if morality is just "right or wrong" then can an objective morality exist? And if one doesn't, how can we look towards morality in space?

Objective morality is just as debatable as any other topic. I'm not sure how this disagrees with my position.

If morality means "right or wrong", then we'd have to figure out a way to determine whats right or wrong. Some people would argue that the "right" action is the most practical one. Some would argue its the one that respects individual rights. Either way, these are just (debatable) ways to determine whats moral. That means any debate resolution that implies a practical approach (like one that uses the word Should) becomes a moral debate, just like any topic that uses the word Ought.

My point was that if whatever is "right or wrong" is a moral or immoral action from a purely practical sense, then you cannot have an objective morality. Thus, morality would not be a viable way to weigh the round. I believe "should" implies more of a policy-option approach that takes into account the political and legal preferences of those enacting it. This is not an inherently amoral topic, but the morality aspect is precluded by legality and politics.

How so? There is a definite right or wrong answer as to if something is practical or not. Saving 5 people is objectively more practical than saving 1. So if you argued pragmatism to determine morality, then there would be an objectively correct action.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 5:42:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:45:25 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 10:00:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:58:13 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/9/2011 9:49:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
No. Should and should not forces a discussion on morality, which is always an interesting contest of ideologies. In fact, morality is the backbone of debate. I would think most debates involve what people and the government should and should not do.

How does "should" imply a moral debate? "Should" naturally gives way to arguments about desirability. Morality is not inherent desirable. "Ought" forces a moral debate.

We basically agree, you're just dabbling with some serious semantics.

We obviously don't agree. And you can't debate without semantics. I do not know why people in this community frown upon semantics when it is the only way to determine a terminus for debate. We can only have an argument if we share a common understanding of what words mean.

What is semantics to you is how I perceive your argument. Semantics implies dishonesty, and that frankly, is false. Also, what may be valid to you seems like semantics to me like your pickiness on "should and should not" which perhaps were not the words that accurately represented what I was trying to say. When you switched it with ought, I still agreed, so yes we do agree. You were just being picky over the meaning of should.

Actually, this is one of the most perfect examples of semantics I have seen. I still agreed when you said "ought" I just thought ought and should were the same. Why we're arguing right now is a mystery to me.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault