The Instigator
kyleniel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dbox
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Deontological morality is nonexistent

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: 8/29/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,209 times Debate No: 117955
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

kyleniel

Pro

Deontological morality can't exist. There will be a scenario in which it would be better to defy morality than to respect it. Even if it would still be wrong, It is common sense to tackle the bigger problem than the smaller problem, Violating morality.
dbox

Con

Pro thank you for the debate,

P1) It is common sense to tackle the bigger (moral) problem than the smaller (moral) problem
P2) This requires the violation of a moral value (even if it is a smaller value)
P3) This is morally wrong
Conclusion) Objective moral standards do not exist

The way pro phrases his proposition presupposes the existence of a categorical imperative (the foundation of deontological morals) or a universal moral law that places unconditional moral culpability on all moral agents. To say "defy morality" or "respect morality" indicates there is a standard to defy or respect. Again to say it is "wrong" implies a standard by which to measure the value of the action. Once more to place degrees of morality (bigger/smaller) is to imply a moral scale by which to measure the value. Finally, To say that morality has been 'violated' is to say that there was a standard. Pro may argue that the standard in view here is a personal standard which one thinks to be universal, But if it is not actually universal, Then the terms mentioned above are meaningless. If morality is subjective, Then it is up to the individual to determine if their action is moral or justified. If this is the case, Once again, The values placed in the question are arbitrary, The conclusion is assumed in the premises, And the proof is unjustifiably circular.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 1
kyleniel

Pro

Why not argue in hypotheticals, Then? Can you not find an easy way to argue against Deontology without disproving morality?
dbox

Con

Pro,

Your position was that "Deontological morality can't exist". You are Pro, Which means you are arguing in support of this statement. So why then do you ask, "Can you not find an easy way to argue against Deontology without disproving morality? " You are arguing against deontology by stating that it DOES NOT exist, That means my argument is that it DOES exist. I have no idea what position you hold to at this point. Another way of saying this is that you are arguing that morality is subjective, And I am saying that it is not. If you do not agree with this, Then you made the wrong argument.

The initial syllogism in my post was simply me restating your position in a more organized manner in order to show how your language disagrees with your conclusion. My point in my Round 1 was that your argument which began by saying deontological morality cannot exist ended up indicating through your wording (wrong, Bigger, Smaller etc) that deontological morality (universal moral truth) does indeed exist, Or else your terms of "bigger/ smaller/violate", Do not have any sensible meaning.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 2
kyleniel

Pro

Well can you find a way to avoid moral nihilism?
dbox

Con

Pro,

Pro, I am guessing you have abandoned your position/ non-position in favor of asking seemingly arbitrary and imprecise questions that are at best tangentially relevant. Relevance aside, The question is utterly incoherent and has no logical connection or reference to anything that has come before it. That being said, I am not required to respond to this off-topic question that has avoided the entirety of the manifold inconsistencies with your position, Including your possible180-degree shift in positions (whether it was an accident or not, I do not mind, But I would still like to know where you stand). Even still, I will offer this in hopes that your next post will address the issues with your position, Whatever that may be. Deontological ethics and moral nihilism are mutually exclusive paradigms, And so far in this debate, My position for Deontological ethics is the only position with any valid or sound argumentation supporting it, And none to the counter, So thus far I have avoided it quite well.

I do not want to assume this is a purposeful avoidance of the issue or a purposeful violation of intellectual honesty, But to continue without addressing my first post would be to confirm that this is sadly the case. Please prove me wrong.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 3
kyleniel

Pro

I'm done.
dbox

Con

Pro,

You started this debate, Would you at least have the courtesy to clear up what your position is, Even if you are unwilling or unable to defend it? It is not just me who was unsure of what you were saying. Teapot made a point to ask, And his question was never answered.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 4
kyleniel

Pro

Well, Can you argue against consequentialist morality?
dbox

Con

Pro,

Whether I can or can not is inconsequential. Your careless and unapologetic disregard for basic debate etiquette is reason enough for me to say I am not interested in submitting myself to that almost guaranteed exercise in futility.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
1. "The morality of an action is not determined by the result". . That would make us robots.
2. " if consequentialism is nonsense. Then morality would be nonsense. "
And It would really speed up the process if you read and understand what I write.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
canis

That does not answer what your views are on deontology.

1. This tells me your view of my critique of consequentialism (not the same as an explanation of your views on deontology). Also, Can you explain your view of my critique? How does that make us robots?

2. Is that your conclusion based on your previous robot statement?

It would really speed up the process if you would develop your thoughts a bit more.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
1. "The morality of an action is not determined by the result". . That would make us robots.
2. " if consequentialism is nonsense. Then morality would be nonsense. "
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
canis

I am also still looking for an answer to my previous question about your view of deontology
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
canis

Consequentialism is secondary at best. The morality of an action is not determined by the result. The morality is in the action and the intention behind it. Consequentialism puts the cart before the horse.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
if consequentialism is nonsense. Then morality would be nonsense.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 3 years ago
BertrandsTeapot
Pure consequentialism is utter nonsense. One cannot possibly predict all of he consequences of their actions
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Rule 1. Stay alive.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
Canis,

Do you view deontology as foundationally human established rules l?
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"Deontology is defined as an ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, Rather than based on the consequences of the action.
Right or wrong exist only under a series of rules. Consequences exists no matter what. Do right or wrong consequences exist? No only if you make rules for it. Rule 1. Stay alive.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.