- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Free healthcare, in my opinion. A free college education doesn't guarantee that people would choose to go to college, while on the other hand, a free healthcare would be much more useful for a larger number of people who can't afford it and people would definitely use it. As an idea, free healthcare seems much more effective. Of course, if one could implement both, it would be amazing.
moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
That's the definition of ethics. That being said, I'm sure there will be cases where the so called "ethics" of a deed might go against morality.
The application of moral principles specifically with respect to a deed, only affecting its immediate consequences
Seems like a more well suited definition to me.
And in your opinion, "critical thinking" is asserting that people who have degrees aren't intelligent because some people who don't have degrees are intelligent? You see, if you'd actually been to university, you'd have been taught that's stupid.
If you'd spent half the time actually thinking, rather than rote mugging up stuff, you'd possibly know what I'm asserting in the first place.
This is why I call people from a university stupid(especially ones who think it's an indicator of intelligence). Seems like you haven't read my whole argument before you replied, but go on.. You stand to prove my argument.
The fact that many of the finest ever in academia weren't the finest in their so called formal education proves how inefficient an idea it is to try to quantify intelligence through degrees. It doesn't take one much to observe that there is little to no actual emphasis on genuine learning and critical thinking in the larger scale. Most people who supposedly have "amazing grades" get through by mugging up texts in most places today.
In a world which holds the opinion of the majority to the highest regard, it's not surprising to see that the education system is designed to make the majority of mediocre intellect succeed.
It's not quite about finding the truth always..
Though I'm not denying the truth in statements of an argument, It need not always be to verify how true a statement is.
Often debates have a common objective, but different ways to achieve it. Such debates depend on which approach is better.
Personally, I just love the reward from using reasoning to debate..
No, but it would be cool if we came up with one. I don’t think Batman could function as Batman under some ideologies, such as those which necessitate oppressive regimes. Which means he arguably could stand for ideologies in which he can function, such as Gotham’s system if people were more individually moral.
I'm not sure if I get what you mean by "under some ideologies which necessitate oppressive regimes".. do you mean batman representing the ideologies or the ideologies imposed on the general public?
In the first case, certainly, he wouldn't be batman under either a far left or far right perspective..
an interesting point to note is: when we move too far right or too far left, we see a decline in moral values in objectives..
and if he actually represented an ideology, albeit custom made, it would certainly have as its feature, a sound sense of morality.. this brings me to another question.. would we have batman if not for a lack in sense of morality among the public?
We dedicate quite a bit of brain space to moral reasoning. .
Well, we wouldn't be debating on this topic if we weren't. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the final decision made in a case(like this) where morality among people leads to conflicting opinions.
Justice that doesn't depend on morality? Morality is the only basis of what is right. Without morality we cannot provide justice instead it makes what's worse more worser. Also without morality we lose our dignity and respect to ourselves, look at the poor prostitutes who trade themselves for money. They also think it is the best to have sex with foreigners just to give their family something to eat. Same to those executors who kill just to provide safety for the citizen. Tell me , If a person has a benevolent intention but makes a cruel action can it be qualified as good ?
You just seem to support my point.. the question you asked in the end makes it clear why "justice" should be morality free. Morality leads to dilemmas that can't be explained to have a common solution, some people would classify your question to be among good acts, while many would do the opposite. One thing we can all agree upon is logic, hence a quantitative decision is the best fit for the situation.
Fair in what terms? In death? I refuse to allow more deaths to occure. Where's that Moral lesson that you learned when you were a kid? Elders told you to value life of human, if you don't do so. You're judged as immoral. If you kill my mother, you become guilty. If I kill you, will that end your guilt? No, you'll just die, nothing happens, no one learns nor is there any wrong corrected. Your delusion of justice is not fair in terms of peace. It's only fair in terms of death.
What is moral to you need not be for another. Morality depends on what you've been taught as a kid by your parents. More specifically, it depends on the environment you grew up as a kid. The only thing then that would make sense is to have justice which doesn't depend on morality. In which case a quantitative standpoint like that of what I stand for, would be the best solution.
Look man, you're looking at the issue from an emotional stance. You're putting yourself in the shoes of either the criminal or a victim and then coming to a conclusion of "what you'd probably like/what anyone would probably like." The thing is, it's either fear or compassion driving you to make that statement that if maybe you do end up in a situation like that, what would you like. See beyond emotions.
To answer your question, do I like it? no. Is it fair? yes.
Death penalty for all crimes? hell no.
Death penalty for crimes that have taken lives? yes.
Nah, just like spanking kids, kids won't learn anything from it , they will only fear their parents but learn no morality. you see, even imprisonment won't teach inmates lesson, they will only fear the policemen but will not change from what they've done.
The ones who committed "specific crimes "(I made it clear of what I'm referring to in the first argument, read it, looks like you haven't) as that I've mentioned wouldn't be alive to fear or commit further crimes. Note we are talking about criminals and not potential criminals here. There is no way to teach morality, it's formed by the social environment around you.