Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Pratical VS Moral Arguments

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:21:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I often hear people claim to favor or oppose a certain policy for practical reasons as opposed to moral reasons. But, I am not sure there is a real difference.

Let's take an example: a tax cut.

A moral argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that taxation is theft and therefore immoral and I therefore favor a tax cut because it reduces the amount of theft."

A practical argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that excessive taxation reduces productivity and therefore a tax cut would increase productivity and increased productivity is a good thing for society."

On the face, the difference seems obvious. However, the person making the supposed "practical" argument is really making a moral argument. The arguments are really this:

1.) I believe that taxation is theft and theft is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would reduce the amoung stolen.

2.) I believe that taxation reduces productivity and this reduction in productivity leads to a lower standard of living. This lowering of the standard of living is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would increase the standard of living

In other words, a moral argument for a policy typically involves a simple, normative statement.

A so called "practical" argument involves a normative statement that is backed by controversial positive assumptions.

So, in actuality, so called practical arguments are really just worse persons of "moral arguments".
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:13:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 3:21:03 AM, BigRat wrote:
I often hear people claim to favor or oppose a certain policy for practical reasons as opposed to moral reasons. But, I am not sure there is a real difference.

Let's take an example: a tax cut.

A moral argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that taxation is theft and therefore immoral and I therefore favor a tax cut because it reduces the amount of theft."

A practical argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that excessive taxation reduces productivity and therefore a tax cut would increase productivity and increased productivity is a good thing for society."

On the face, the difference seems obvious. However, the person making the supposed "practical" argument is really making a moral argument. The arguments are really this:

1.) I believe that taxation is theft and theft is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would reduce the amoung stolen.

2.) I believe that taxation reduces productivity and this reduction in productivity leads to a lower standard of living. This lowering of the standard of living is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would increase the standard of living

In other words, a moral argument for a policy typically involves a simple, normative statement.

A so called "practical" argument involves a normative statement that is backed by controversial positive assumptions.

So, in actuality, so called practical arguments are really just worse persons of "moral arguments".

How is this even an issue?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:15:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
be it practical, or moral, it really has to do with one's opinion either way...
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 5:13:23 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 3:21:03 AM, BigRat wrote:
I often hear people claim to favor or oppose a certain policy for practical reasons as opposed to moral reasons. But, I am not sure there is a real difference.

Let's take an example: a tax cut.

A moral argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that taxation is theft and therefore immoral and I therefore favor a tax cut because it reduces the amount of theft."

A practical argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that excessive taxation reduces productivity and therefore a tax cut would increase productivity and increased productivity is a good thing for society."

On the face, the difference seems obvious. However, the person making the supposed "practical" argument is really making a moral argument. The arguments are really this:

1.) I believe that taxation is theft and theft is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would reduce the amoung stolen.

2.) I believe that taxation reduces productivity and this reduction in productivity leads to a lower standard of living. This lowering of the standard of living is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would increase the standard of living

In other words, a moral argument for a policy typically involves a simple, normative statement.

A so called "practical" argument involves a normative statement that is backed by controversial positive assumptions.

So, in actuality, so called practical arguments are really just worse persons of "moral arguments".

How is this even an issue?

Thank you for your worthless contribution to this thread. Please people, if you have nothing of value to say, don't bother commenting.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:16:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 5:15:56 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
be it practical, or moral, it really has to do with one's opinion either way...

Okay. This is more substantive than your original comment.

That's my point. All arguments, at their core, are moral arguments.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:20:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/14/2013 5:13:23 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 3:21:03 AM, BigRat wrote:
I often hear people claim to favor or oppose a certain policy for practical reasons as opposed to moral reasons. But, I am not sure there is a real difference.

Let's take an example: a tax cut.

A moral argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that taxation is theft and therefore immoral and I therefore favor a tax cut because it reduces the amount of theft."

A practical argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that excessive taxation reduces productivity and therefore a tax cut would increase productivity and increased productivity is a good thing for society."

On the face, the difference seems obvious. However, the person making the supposed "practical" argument is really making a moral argument. The arguments are really this:

1.) I believe that taxation is theft and theft is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would reduce the amoung stolen.

2.) I believe that taxation reduces productivity and this reduction in productivity leads to a lower standard of living. This lowering of the standard of living is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would increase the standard of living

In other words, a moral argument for a policy typically involves a simple, normative statement.

A so called "practical" argument involves a normative statement that is backed by controversial positive assumptions.

So, in actuality, so called practical arguments are really just worse persons of "moral arguments".

How is this even an issue?


Thank you for your worthless contribution to this thread. Please people, if you have nothing of value to say, don't bother commenting.

I'm not even sure what logical reasoning one would have to debate such a trivial thing, yes we know and understand this about Moral, and practical arguments, so i guess we should thank you for pointing out the obvious?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:31:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 5:20:34 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 5:16:00 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 4/14/2013 5:13:23 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 3:21:03 AM, BigRat wrote:
I often hear people claim to favor or oppose a certain policy for practical reasons as opposed to moral reasons. But, I am not sure there is a real difference.

Let's take an example: a tax cut.

A moral argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that taxation is theft and therefore immoral and I therefore favor a tax cut because it reduces the amount of theft."

A practical argument for a tax cut may go as such: "I believe that excessive taxation reduces productivity and therefore a tax cut would increase productivity and increased productivity is a good thing for society."

On the face, the difference seems obvious. However, the person making the supposed "practical" argument is really making a moral argument. The arguments are really this:

1.) I believe that taxation is theft and theft is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would reduce the amoung stolen.

2.) I believe that taxation reduces productivity and this reduction in productivity leads to a lower standard of living. This lowering of the standard of living is immoral. Therefore, I support a tax cut because it would increase the standard of living

In other words, a moral argument for a policy typically involves a simple, normative statement.

A so called "practical" argument involves a normative statement that is backed by controversial positive assumptions.

So, in actuality, so called practical arguments are really just worse persons of "moral arguments".

How is this even an issue?


Thank you for your worthless contribution to this thread. Please people, if you have nothing of value to say, don't bother commenting.

I'm not even sure what logical reasoning one would have to debate such a trivial thing, yes we know and understand this about Moral, and practical arguments, so i guess we should thank you for pointing out the obvious?

It should be obvious. Yet, I hear people all the time condescendingly saying that they base their views on "practical arguments" and not silly "moral arguments".
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 6:07:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 5:42:50 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
The distinction is that one is utilitarian and the other is not.

^this
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln