Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

I dont know what my criterion is?

letoyajackson
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 5:56:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Alright im new to this thing- I just started debate (my first year in highschool) this year and im having a serious problem with the criterion part. I debate this coming saturday and i just have HALF OF MY AFF case done which is no help. Anyways this is our resolved: Standards of professionalism ought to be value above free expression on social networking sites. And this is what i have so far:

"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life." Because I strongly believe in the words of Albert Einstein I affirm the Resolved that: Standards of professional behavior ought be valued above freedom of expression on social networking sites". Before I continue I would like to define a few crucial terms-
Professional Standards or Standards of Professional behavior is defined by UIL.com as universally accepted level of ethics.
Social networking site –is define by dictionary.com as a website that focuses on building online communities of people who share interests and/or activities, or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others, and lastly
Valued-is also define by dictionary.com as having value of a specific kind and in this case professional standards or professional ethics.
The value I will be upholding for this round will be morality which can be defined as The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.. Morality is important because it is the foundation of professional standards .Morality as is defined "standards of good or right conduct" .Professional standards is also defined by good or right conduct. My value is upheld through my criterion which is : ?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:30:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.
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.
letoyajackson
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:47:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:30:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.

I dont understand?
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:48:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
First, you want to move away from definitions that are from dictionary.com. Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, or use the American Heritage definitions that dictionary.com provides.

Next, never value morality. It's far too vague, and as R_R points out, circular. Pick a specific moral theory. It seems like you could pick Utilitarianism or Kant's Categorical Imperative, though I'd definitely recommend the latter. Utility has too many dehumanizing flaws for you to use, and would actually be turned by your opponent.

Do a bit of research on the CI and see if you can't come up with anything for a criterion ;).
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:58:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you value morality, then you want your value criterion to explain how we act morally in the resolution. For the aff, that might be something along the lines of saving lives.

@R_R. A value of morality means something along the lines of saying that morality is important, and so we should act in a moral manner. The value criterion should, if she does it right, clarify what is means to act morally.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 9:06:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:58:45 PM, LB628 wrote:
If you value morality, then you want your value criterion to explain how we act morally in the resolution. For the aff, that might be something along the lines of saving lives.

@R_R. A value of morality means something along the lines of saying that morality is important, and so we should act in a moral manner.
Your rephrasing is every bit as redundant as the original. To say that something is moral is to say that one should do it, or that one will achieve a given value by it. Thus, to say "You should be moral" is to say "You should do what you should do."
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 9:46:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Your rephrasing is every bit as redundant as the original. To say that something is moral is to say that one should do it, or that one will achieve a given value by it. Thus, to say "You should be moral" is to say "You should do what you should do."

Nay, you're missing the point. A good question that can be asked to one who adheres to a particular moral theory is "why should I be moral"? Indeed, this is part of the reason that fuels my moral skepticism.

It's not redundant, because on further elaboration it could be translated to "what reason is there for acting in a morally just manner"? You are equivocating two different types of should - one refers to a rational justification while the other to moral obligations.

You seem to believe the morality is intrinsically motivating, which I would say is perturbing and wrong. Wanna give a case for it?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 9:59:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 9:46:49 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Your rephrasing is every bit as redundant as the original. To say that something is moral is to say that one should do it, or that one will achieve a given value by it. Thus, to say "You should be moral" is to say "You should do what you should do."

Nay, you're missing the point. A good question that can be asked to one who adheres to a particular moral theory is "why should I be moral"?
But it's not a good question. "Why would I" maybe, but "Should" already presumes morality.


It's not redundant, because on further elaboration it could be translated to "what reason is there for acting in a morally just manner"?
If one holds it to be a meaningful question, this would just be an infinite regress-- "Why should I care about reasons?" and so on and so forth.

You are equivocating two different types of should - one refers to a rational justification while the other to moral obligations.
A rational justification given what premise? A moral premise.


You seem to believe the morality is intrinsically motivating
No, I believe that one chooses the goal one will be motivated by , and reality dictates as a result of the goal (not intrinsically) what will be moral given that.
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 11:14:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
But it's not a good question. "Why would I" maybe, but "Should" already presumes morality.

Not every usage of should implies morality. The statement "you should go to college if you want a good career" has nothing to do with morality.

It's not redundant, because on further elaboration it could be translated to "what reason is there for acting in a morally just manner"?
If one holds it to be a meaningful question, this would just be an infinite regress-- "Why should I care about reasons?" and so on and so forth.

That's an issue for the theory of justification, which is a branch of epistemology.

You are equivocating two different types of should - one refers to a rational justification while the other to moral obligations.
A rational justification given what premise? A moral premise.

Again, not every rational justification nor motivation needs to include morality. See previous example.

You seem to believe the morality is intrinsically motivating
No, I believe that one chooses the goal one will be motivated by , and reality dictates as a result of the goal (not intrinsically) what will be moral given that.

What I mean is you believe there is a internal, necessary connection between one's belief that X ought to be done and one's motivation to do X.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 11:31:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 11:14:09 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
But it's not a good question. "Why would I" maybe, but "Should" already presumes morality.

Not every usage of should implies morality. The statement "you should go to college if you want a good career" has nothing to do with morality.
Yes it does. Morality-- the code which dictates how a goal (a value) can be achieved. Given the goal "career," going to college is moral.
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 11:40:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Not every usage of should implies morality. The statement "you should go to college if you want a good career" has nothing to do with morality.
Yes it does. Morality-- the code which dictates how a goal (a value) can be achieved. Given the goal "career," going to college is moral.

Where in the world do you get such a definition of morality?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 11:47:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Simple. When people are talking about morality, they are attempting to convince someone to take or not to take an action (and when they are thinking about it, deciding whether to take an action). Advocating something makes no sense if you do not wish to achieve something by it.

What alternative do you propose?
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
11/1/2009 11:49:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And since "right and good" are terms which presume a moral standard already don't come at me with the OP's definition, you might as well define a car as an automobile-- it tells you nothing if you don't already know the concept you're looking for.
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 1:27:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Do you want to have a debate on this :)? Basically, it's come upon a very interesting issue of the normative definition of morality, which I think needs to be addressed sooner or later on this site (since moral issues are entertained so often).
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:35:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:48:40 PM, ToastOfDestiny wrote:
First, you want to move away from definitions that are from dictionary.com. Try Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, or use the American Heritage definitions that dictionary.com provides.

I think Toast is referring to thefreedictionary.com, which gets its definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 9:55:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 1:27:19 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Do you want to have a debate on this :)? Basically, it's come upon a very interesting issue of the normative definition of morality, which I think needs to be addressed sooner or later on this site (since moral issues are entertained so often).

What sort of resolution would it be?
Definitions are mostly arbitrary, at least to start with.
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.
letoyajackson
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 1:37:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:30:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.

okay so do you think i should change my value be something like societal welfare- what is best for the society
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 1:45:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 1:37:31 PM, letoyajackson wrote:
At 11/1/2009 6:30:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.

okay so do you think i should change my value be something like societal welfare- what is best for the society

LOL.
Then again it would be funnier if you weren't new here.

Society is not homogenous. Nothing in particular is good for all elements of society.

I'm not a formal debater, but I think first-- you also need to fix your definition of professionalism, there is no universally accepted ethics. Depending on what your new definition is, you probably want a value like social stability, and a value criterion like IETF Netiquette Guidelines?
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.
letoyajackson
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 1:54:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 1:45:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/2/2009 1:37:31 PM, letoyajackson wrote:
At 11/1/2009 6:30:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.

okay so do you think i should change my value be something like societal welfare- what is best for the society

LOL.
Then again it would be funnier if you weren't new here.

Society is not homogenous. Nothing in particular is good for all elements of society.

I'm not a formal debater, but I think first-- you also need to fix your definition of professionalism, there is no universally accepted ethics. Depending on what your new definition is, you probably want a value like social stability, and a value criterion like IETF Netiquette Guidelines?

) you guys are throwing in all these complicated words in i very bland person so ill say something that'll cut straight to the juice
also there is no real clear definition of professional standards and if i chose to define professionalism-then that could easily be attacked because you cant expect a 14 year old on a social networking site such as myspace to value professionalism
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 3:29:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 1:54:13 PM, letoyajackson wrote:
At 11/2/2009 1:45:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/2/2009 1:37:31 PM, letoyajackson wrote:
At 11/1/2009 6:30:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which is being redundant. Valuing morality is like pointing a flashlight at itself. It completely misses the point. A morality is a code of valuation-- valuation of other things.

okay so do you think i should change my value be something like societal welfare- what is best for the society

LOL.
Then again it would be funnier if you weren't new here.

Society is not homogenous. Nothing in particular is good for all elements of society.

I'm not a formal debater, but I think first-- you also need to fix your definition of professionalism, there is no universally accepted ethics. Depending on what your new definition is, you probably want a value like social stability, and a value criterion like IETF Netiquette Guidelines?

) you guys are throwing in all these complicated words in i very bland person so ill say something that'll cut straight to the juice
also there is no real clear definition of professional standards and if i chose to define professionalism-then that could easily be attacked because you cant expect a 14 year old on a social networking site such as myspace to value professionalism

Failure to define the term does not prevent such an attack.
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.
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 5:55:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You can just define professionalism as you have - proper conduct. A 'professional' 14-year old doesn't act the same way as a 'professional' 38-year old. They both do conduct themselves in a 'proper' way though.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 6:36:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 9:55:03 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/2/2009 1:27:19 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Do you want to have a debate on this :)? Basically, it's come upon a very interesting issue of the normative definition of morality, which I think needs to be addressed sooner or later on this site (since moral issues are entertained so often).

What sort of resolution would it be?
Definitions are mostly arbitrary, at least to start with.

Something along the lines of "the normative definition of morality should be X" - either you or I will define X as the instigator, and the contender will refute it (and if you want, we can tweak the resolution to force the contender to supply their own definition).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 7:14:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What's a "normative definition?"
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 7:19:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 7:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What's a "normative definition?"

What the definition of morality should be, in the same manner of how there is a debate of how free will should be defined (or of what model should represent it).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 7:44:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 7:19:51 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 11/2/2009 7:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What's a "normative definition?"

What the definition of morality should be
You're committing the same redundancy as the OP-- The definition that should be should be X.

A simpler resolution would be "For general purpose, the term "Morality" should refer to "The code which dictates how a goal (a value) can be achieved. " This removes redundancy, and any hint that definitions are or can be inherent to words rather than applied to them by some human means.
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.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 7:47:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 7:44:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/2/2009 7:19:51 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 11/2/2009 7:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What's a "normative definition?"

What the definition of morality should be
You're committing the same redundancy as the OP-- The definition that should be should be X.

Not my fault if you conflate "should" with every utterance of moral statements. Nonetheless, I'm fine with your resolution.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 7:47:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'll challenge tomorrow prolly then.
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.