The Instigator
SMendel
Pro (for)
The Contender
primeministerJoshua812
Con (against)

In Defence of Consequentialism

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
primeministerJoshua812 has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 116572
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

SMendel

Pro

Consequentialism can be broadly defined as 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number', although of course, most consequentialists take a more nuanced approach to what constitutes happiness. I shall be trying to defend consequentialism against the other two main branches of normative ethics: virtue-based ethics (emphasising moral character itself) and deontology (emphasising moral rules). I would love to debate with anyone who has an interest in moral philosophy.

For those interested in the debate, there's a simple explanation of consequentialism here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

And a more in-depth discussion of consequentialism here:

https://plato.stanford.edu...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
Also, according to this, minority's interests shouldn't be taken into account because consequentialism says we should only care about the good of the majority?
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
felixmendelssohn
I think moral rules and laws are there to ensure consequentialism actually. So I dont see how they're mutually exclusive.
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
Start a new debate. When the timer runs out this debate will end because of the forfeit rules.
Posted by SMendel 3 years ago
SMendel
Okay. How do I do that?
Posted by primeministerJoshua812 3 years ago
primeministerJoshua812
I actually just accepted the debate on accident. I do not want to be in the debate. I think you should restart this.
This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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