CreateDebate


Debate Info

21
15
Yes No
Debate Score:36
Arguments:43
Total Votes:39
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (17)
 
 No (15)

Debate Creator

WinstonC(1115) pic



Should females perform different roles in the military to males?

Females generally can't meet the male military standards for fitness. Is it fair then, to assign the females that cannot meet male standards different military roles to males which require less fitness?

What military roles might these be? Should less fit men also be able to undertake these roles?
(edited because I was wrong about U.S. army fitness standards differing by gender, they only differ for the Marines, and even this is being stopped)

Yes

Side Score: 21
VS.

No

Side Score: 15
4 points

In the US, combat roles have been opened up to females. However, the fitness requirements for those roles have remained equal. As such very few women have been able to qualify. There is an attrition rate for male service members as well. In this way, the most physically demanding roles are open to women who qualify equally. This was the situation last I knew. It may have changed. But if this is the case, I find it appropriate. Equity has no place in life and death matters

Side: Yes
1 point

I looked into it and you're right, it's only the marines that differ in the fitness requirements for different genders (Source 1) and this is even changing (Source 2).

Sources:

(1) https://www.athleticbusiness.com/physical-fitness-tests-for-females-under-military-microscope.html

(2) https://taskandpurpose.com/army-wants-gender-neutral-fitnes-test/

Side: Yes
Amarel(3451) Clarified
1 point

It’s further complicated by the requirements for different occupations. I’m not informed on all of that.

Side: Yes
1 point

Sorry for posting this subject in an irrelevant debate of yours, but I was banned from the debate in which this was relevant.

I’m going to start this by being as clear as I can about the words we are using as I believe there is some confusion here.

-Objective: True regardless of opinion. Not the same as stagnant or fixed.

-Subjective: Experiential. Perspective. That which is subjective is not necessarily false, but it is necessarily incomplete.

-Relative: Associated. Relative is not the same as subjective. The objectively best house to build will vary relative to environment. The best diet will vary relative to a person. Things can be objectively true relative to you whether you subjectively believe it or not.

-Significant: Having a great effect. This applies to both the sentient and non-sentient. To the living and the non-living. A star implosion can be a significant event in the lifeless cosmos around it. A death can be a significant event in the living social circle of the deceased.

-Important: Significant to an entity. Important is an evaluative word. If a thing is important, than it matters (the terms are interchangeable).

-Value: Anything for which action would be taken to gain and/or to keep. All living things value, whether consciously or automatically. There is no value without a valuer.

-Inherent value or value in and of itself: Life creates value and is the only thing that values. The fundamental value of life is life itself. As such life is the only thing with inherent value. Put another way, the thing that makes value possible first values itself. Outside of itself, values are not possible. Thus, one cannot look beyond life to find the value of life. Life’s value is in itself and of itself.

Our conscious experience is our mode of life, it is what we equate with life. Thus, we view conscious experience as having inherent value. However, the only conscious experience one can know is one’s own. As such, one’s own conscious experience (life) is the only thing with inherent value. All other values are derivatives of the value of ones own life (conscious experience).

-Morality: Code of conduct. Morality is both implicit and explicit. Morality applies to both individual conduct and social conduct. Morality is an evolved trait. Morality evolved (like anything else) because it aids the moral agent in survival. To survive well is to thrive. We can know things to be relatively morally correct by how well they serve the function for which morality evolved, survive and thrive.

Now I will try to answer any questions from your post that are not answered above.

Do you believe that objectively nothing matters and if so, why do anything?

Nothing matters outside the framework in which mattering is possible. Which is to say, life provides importance and nothing is important from a perspective outside of life. One can only imagine the importance of life from the perspective of a valuer, a living entity. Since life is important in itself and of itself, it is not important outside itself. Since life is nothing if not organisms, the self valuation of life is observable as the self valuation of organisms. As a human organism who experiences consciously, my own life is the only thing that I can know to be important in and of itself relative to me. This is true for your life as it pertains to you. People immediately close to me are more important to my conscious experience of my life than people who are further (socially or geographically). Though I know that people who are completely unknown to me still have a sense of inherent value relative to their experience of life. My sphere of valuation decreases as greater distance is made. This applies not only to social circles and geography, but also to kind. All life values itself and living things their kind. The degree to which I value other living things varies with (among other things) how similar are our kinds (Dogs vs ants vs flies vs bacteria).

Does this not mean that objectively it doesn't matter at all whether the universe exists or not?

There is a difference between never existing and going out of existence. If the universe had never existed, it would not matter. To think that it would is an error of looking at it from the perspective of existing. From this perspective, it is more accurate to ask if it matters if the universe goes out of existence. That matters a great deal, because we are already here making things matter. The Shmu doesn’t care that it never existed, but once it exists it care a great deal if it goes out of existence again.

Conscious experience itself is significant, as we are aware by our own conscious experience. As such, any effect on conscious experience would also be significant.

Significance is relative. The death of an ant in Africa is significant to whatever that death affects. It is important to the ant in question. But there is no evidence that conscious experience is a disembodied phenomenon. Even if it were, it expresses itself in discreet independent organisms. In your above statement, replace “conscious experience” with something else of significance that we have. Say your statement using “hands” in place of “conscious experience”.

Is your moral code solely concerned with survival, and if so, does this mean that if I should do whatever is necessary for my survival?

My moral code is concerned with surviving and thriving. Since we are social creatures as well as individuals, we have developed mechanisms through which thriving means more than individual abundance. Your personal well-being is not isolated from your loved ones. You value them a great deal. If you’re fortunate, you may value some of them so much, that your existence would not be worth continuing if they were removed from it. Those are the kinds of people for whom you would could conceive of dying. Similarly, there are certain actions that, if you took them, you would no longer be the person you are. Depending on the kind of person you are, you my feel it is worth dying before acting in despicable ways, since such action would irreversibly eliminate who you are anyway.

Does this mean that when George Soros was rounding up fellow Jews in Nazi Germany he was morally justified because it allowed him to survive and thrive?

It is not clear that clear cut moral judgments can be made concerning unique and desperate situations. Was it truly necessary in order to stay alive? It doesn’t seem likely. Moral dilemmas play on the fact that we are both individualistic and social in nature. The life boat scenario is a good example. But our daily lives are not in a life boat or Nazi Germany. Moral codes are meant for guiding daily life and common scenarios.

"Human consciousness is important in and of itself, not necessarily beyond itself. It is not important in and of ant consciousness, which is important in and of itself..."

It feels like we're talking about different things here (I was talking about judging the difference between a chimp's consciousness and a human's), but maybe I just don't understand?

You are a human making the judgment. You will always make the judgment from the perspective of an entity. The nature of the entity determines the objectively appropriate judgment. I know you think that things can still be important even if they are important to no one at all, but it just isn’t so. This isn’t to say that objective truth does not exist on such matters, but only that the objectively correct judgment varies with context.

You'd agree that human consciousness disappearing would be objectively significant, though? Do you hold that things can be significant without the involvement of consciousness and if so how?

Yes. An event can take place that has an effect on many non-living, non-conscious things while still being significant insofar as there was a substantial effect. But it is only to living things that a significant event can be important.

"that importance would be based on their own valuation of their own (and their kind’s) conscious experience as more important than others, which it is (in and of itself)."

Subjectively more important? I personally think that if something is objectively significant or objectively matters, that it is, as a result, objectively important.

Not merely subjectively important, but objectively important relative to them. If you have to take have to take chemo to stay alive, that is objectively important to you. Since you need it, and it could kill me, the objective truth of the matter varies depending on the context. This is true regardless of our subjective opinions or experiences of chemo.

Human consciousness is more important to humans than to ants. Ant consciousness is more important to ants than to humans. They are not wrong and neither are we. We are both objectively correct as the value of my consciousness is in and of itself, just like theirs.

"The only way to affect the whole is to affect each and every. There is no such thing as consciousness as a whole if it is not the total of the consciousness of each."

How would you describe the aggregate effect of a stimulus on a group? How would you rephrase, for example, "capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole"?

When someone says that capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole, it is assumed that you are referring to people that it has had an impact on at all. Naturally capitalism has done nothing for uncontacted tribe of the North Sentinel Island. But at least capitalism has a far reaching effect. The death of unknown person in unknown place has a local effect. It is certainly important to those who it effects, objectively so. But as Capitalism is to a Sentinelese, it does not affect me.

We could get sadists off the streets by allowing them to be voluntarily imprisoned in exchange for being allowed to torture animals all day. This would reduce the number of intensely sadistic people in society which would theoretically decrease the amount of humans harmed by them. Assuming that it worked (and I see not why it wouldn't work), would you support such a measure? Further, would you support the blanket removal of restrictions on animal testing/experimentation?

I would not support such a measure as it neglects the sadism of those who maintain such a program. I believe there are appropriate circumstances for animal testing and it should not be banned in all cases for all things.

"As a person, I’m disturbed by the torturous cat who toys with the poor little mouse."

Does this have anything to do with the suffering of the mouse?

"Right, because we don’t want those animals to suffer. Because if we were ok with making animals suffer we would be detrimental to our kind."

Why is the first sentence not sufficient reason? I am aware that suffering is horrible, and thus I want to prevent suffering.

The first sentence is not sufficient if you want to make decisions on more than just emotion. Emotions feel just as strong even when not driven by reason.

If we speak of the underpinning foundations of morality, is it not possible that subconsciously this awareness of the horror of suffering is part of why we are moral? Perhaps this is part of why we evolved empathy.

By knowing the underpinning foundations, and caring about them, we can apply them consistently become more moral than our emotions have room for.

Suffering is not an evil in all cases. Suffering and the potential to suffer is essential. It is also not the case that empathy is good in all cases. Our development of empathy has been crucial to our survival both individually and as a species. But empathy is an extension of a theory of mind that children develop in early childhood, which allows them to learn how to lie. Empathy is one reason we can act strategically in warfare or push the right buttons in an interrogation. Empathy is a tool of saints and torturers alike.

Side: Yes
1 point

"Subjective...Relative"

Though relative to an individual is one definition of subjective, I appreciate the distinction, and it helps my understanding of what you're saying. My issue is that I see not how you would describe the fact that an effect on consciousness has significant consequence.

"Significant: Having a great effect. This applies to both the sentient and non-sentient. To the living and the non-living. A star implosion can be a significant event in the lifeless cosmos around it. A death can be a significant event in the living social circle of the deceased."

How can it be significant if it doesn't affect consciousness? As far as I can see, things only can be significant if they have an effect on consciousness. How/why does a star's implosion have significance?

"Morality evolved (like anything else) because it aids the moral agent in survival. To survive well is to thrive. We can know things to be relatively morally correct by how well they serve the function for which morality evolved, survive and thrive."

Your definition of morality differs here from mine. I'd agree that it is prescriptive of how to act, however when morality is reduced to survival I have no reason not to kill you if it increases my chances of survival.

"Nothing matters outside the framework in which mattering is possible."

We should make distinctions between words to make this easier to discuss, as you have done. The issue is that when I say "matters" I mean the definition "to be of consequence, importance or significance" (Source 1,2). You seem to be using "matters" to mean your definition of importance here, when I am talking about your definition of significance.

"If the universe had never existed, it would not matter... it is more accurate to ask if it matters if the universe goes out of existence."

It's of significant consequence whether the universe exists or not, and I think if we use the same definitions we agree here. If the universe appeared from nothing, or disappeared into nothing I would view these events as of significant consequence.

"Significance is relative."

How would you describe the fact that the suffering of conscious entities has significant consequence?

"Say your statement using “hands” in place of “conscious experience”."

Our hands only hold second-order significance as a result of their relationship to our conscious experience. In other words, our hands only have significance because they have an effect on our conscious experience.

"My moral code is concerned with surviving and thriving."

I don't feel that you've answered my question here, though your answer would appear to be "yes, you should do whatever is necessary for you to survive and thrive". This means that as long as what you do is best for you, it is moral (sounds very much like Randian objectivism). As such, as long as I can get away with it, it's perfectly moral for me to disarm the U.S. citizenry and install myself as dictator for life.

"Depending on the kind of person you are, you my feel it is worth dying before acting in despicable ways, since such action would irreversibly eliminate who you are anyway."

Yet wouldn't such a choice be against your moral code?

"It is not clear that clear cut moral judgments can be made concerning unique and desperate situations."

I would have thought, under your definition, that whatever helped you most to survive and thrive would be most moral. My moral code can make clear cut judgements if it has complete information (which of course we never have).

"Was it truly necessary in order to stay alive? It doesn’t seem likely."

Why is that? In any case, it was certainly necessary for him to thrive.

"But our daily lives are not in a life boat or Nazi Germany. Moral codes are meant for guiding daily life and common scenarios."

Personally, I think that these are the most important moral situations. If people in Nazi Germany stood up for what was right, rather than doing what was expedient, things could have been very different. It's the same with social justice today, the majority don't believe in it (it's split the left), yet most people won't speak against it because doing so is against their self-interest.

"I know you think that things can still be important even if they are important to no one at all, but it just isn’t so."

I don't see how it wouldn't be important that consciousness exists. Without consciousness, nothing would be of significant consequence. Note that important here is a close synonym to significant. Perhaps if I said it was important to reality itself then we would agree?

"This isn’t to say that objective truth does not exist on such matters, but only that the objectively correct judgment varies with context."

If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?

"Yes."

I assume you mean only objectively significant to humans?

"An event can take place that has an effect on many non-living, non-conscious things while still being significant insofar as there was a substantial effect. But it is only to living things that a significant event can be important."

This sounds like statistical significance, though "substantial" is undefined and entirely subjective. Note that important and significant are synonyms (though they can have differences in meaning).

"If you have to take have to take chemo to stay alive, that is objectively important to you. Since you need it, and it could kill me, the objective truth of the matter varies depending on the context."

The objective truth of the matter would be that it's important for the person with cancer to have chemo and important that the person who doesn't need chemo doesn't have it. The reason for this importance is because of the effect it has on consciousness.

"Human consciousness is more important to humans than to ants. Ant consciousness is more important to ants than to humans. They are not wrong and neither are we. We are both objectively correct as the value of my consciousness is in and of itself, just like theirs."

Conscious experience has consequences that are of significance, as we know from our own experience. It's like how we assume other people are conscious because we are conscious, we can tell that suffering is of significant consequence because we have felt those consequences ourselves. This is the most important thing to understand and where I think we are talking past each other.

"When someone says that capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole, it is assumed that you are referring to people that it has had an impact on at all."

I was trying to explain the aggregate effect of a stimulus on a group, in this case, consciousness. When I asked you to rephrase "capitalism has had a positive impact on humanity as a whole" I meant that capitalism has, on average, had a positive effect on humans. Actions can, on average, have a positive effect on consciousness, was what I meant when I said "a positive impact on consciousness as a whole".

"I would not support such a measure as it neglects the sadism of those who maintain such a program."

Why must the organizers be sadists? They can be operating from the idea that doing so will benefit humanity.

"I believe there are appropriate circumstances for animal testing and it should not be banned in all cases for all things. "

I'm asking why there should be any restrictions on animal testing if the results might help humans. There are extensive ethical guidelines for animal research at present and many studies are deemed unethical (despite offering benefits). Your moral code should, in my perspective, desire to lift all restrictions on animal testing that would provide any benefit to humanity.

"The first sentence is not sufficient if you want to make decisions on more than just emotion. Emotions feel just as strong even when not driven by reason."

It's not a decision based on emotion, it's based on an understanding of what it is like to suffer; the significant consequences. Does your reaction to a cat torturing a mouse really have nothing to do with your understanding of the mouse's suffering?

"Suffering is not an evil in all cases. Suffering and the potential to suffer is essential."

100% agreed, I believe that suffering is essential to reality itself and have written about that at length (can find and link it if interested). I also made the case for exceptions where suffering is actually a good thing in the debate where I initially wrote of this idea of morality. For example, the negative experience of being forced to study at school grants a greater quality of life in the long term. My view of morality is concerned with the long term, not merely the proximate effects, of our actions. An overview is available here, that you seemingly at least partially agreed with (Source 3).

"Empathy is one reason we can act strategically in warfare or push the right buttons in an interrogation. Empathy is a tool of saints and torturers alike."

I agree, but just because we can use our understanding of how someone else is feeling in a negative way does not mean that we should, or that it's why it developed. Most people explain their moral behavior in the way I am alluding to "I would not like it if it were done to me". While this does not by any means make me correct (in part because most people are only moral because they are forced to be), it gives credence to the idea that empathy is a major factor in why we treat others well. This is also why advertisements for charities show pictures of half-dead children or animals (charity-specific) to motivate altruistic action.

Sources:

(1) https://www.thefreedictionary.com/mattering

(2) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mattering

(3) https://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Moral NihilismForandAgainst

Side: Yes
Amarel(3451) Clarified
1 point

My issue is that I see not how you would describe the fact that an effect on consciousness has significant consequence.

How can it be significant if it doesn't affect consciousness? As far as I can see, things only can be significant if they have an effect on consciousness. How/why does a star's implosion have significance?

This is why I made the distinction between significant and important. A star’s implosion is significant insofar as it has great effect (a relative term). Once observed, we can discuss the significant effect the star had on the surrounding bodies without any knowledge of consciousness within those bodies. Thus, a physical event can have significance without affecting consciousness. A physical event that affects someone’s consciousness becomes important. Objectively important, even if only to said consciousness.

I have no reason not to kill you if it increases my chances of survival.

You strike me as the kind of person who would see no moral impropriety with killing a person posing a threat to your survival. In most cases, killing to increase the chances of one’s survival is (correctly) not opposed on moral grounds. It’s the reason that most laws distinguish murder from modes of taking a human life. Murder, on the other hand, cannot increase one’s chances of survival due to the social nature of human beings and the response the murder elicits from other humans.

How would you describe the fact that the suffering of conscious entities has significant consequence?

Using my distinction of terms, suffering not only has significant consequence, but it is important as well.

Our hands only hold second-order significance as a result of their relationship to our conscious experience.

My point is that your conscious experience, like your hand, holds importance to you, but not to everyone else. To restate your sentence using “hands”, it says “Hands themselves are significant, as we are aware because of our own hands. As such, any effect on hands would also be significant.” This is incorrect. Any effect on your hands is important to you. Just as any effect on your conscious experience is important to you. (Note that I am utilizing my distinction between significant and important. All important things are significant, not all significant things are important.)

There is something more fundamental than your conscious experience, your metabolism. All living things must have a metabolism. There would be no consciousness without it. Does this mean your conscious experience holds second-order significance?

answer would appear to be "yes, you should do whatever is necessary for you to survive and thrive". This means that as long as what you do is best for you, it is moral (sounds very much like Randian objectivism). As such, as long as I can get away with it, it's perfectly moral for me to disarm the U.S. citizenry and install myself as dictator for life.

Yes, you should do whatever is necessary for you to survive and thrive. You should do whatever is best for your survival, and since we are social animals, you should also do whatever will best help you thrive. Being social means we require other people in order to thrive. A hermit surviving very well all alone is likely suffering from a disorder and is not thriving the way he would be in a healthy family unit.

Now take your supposition, that “as long as I can get away with it” I should be a tyrant. People actually thought this for most of human history, and humanity did not survive and thrive the way we do today. That means that getting away with it isn’t sufficient to be moral. You can objectively know the value of a moral code by how well it allows people to survive and to thrive. Doing whatever you can get away with is very short term thinking, and it does not follow from what I have suggested.

Yet wouldn't such a choice be against your moral code?

No. If I have to kill my friend in order to live, then I will no longer be the person I was before I killed my friend. That person died with the killing. Nor would my existence be valuable to me knowing that my friend is not here because I am. Thus, it would be more reasonable to end my existence thriving in the knowledge that my friend can go on, rather than continuing my existence in misery as a person I no longer recognize.

I would have thought, under your definition, that whatever helped you most to survive and thrive would be most moral.

No. Morality evolved, not through unique one in a million situations, but through eons of daily life. Daily life consisting of concerns for personal, family, and community well-being. Moral dilemmas are simply situations where individual moral considerations are pitted against social moral considerations, and the answers are often not clear cut.

My moral code can make clear cut judgements if it has complete information (which of course we never have).

If complete information included historical and future information, my code could make these judgements as well.

Does your moral code consider all individual human consciousness’s to be equally valuable as any other individual moral consciousness’s? If so, then your moral code would demand you kill your kid to save two homeless strangers. An act my code would object to.

"Was it truly necessary in order to stay alive? It doesn’t seem likely."

Why is that?

Because of the many numerous people who got through without actively hunting innocent people. Nonetheless, there is a moral virtue known as courage. It is essential to the species and is often associated with the social aspect of morality. If Soros’s individual survival meant hunting down innocent people, then he is a coward. Furthermore, he is the kind of person who seems unfazed by continuing his existence as this kind of person. So I would judge him harshly. Though, as I said, it is not clear that we can make clear cut moral judgments concerning unique and desperate situations.

Personally, I think that these are the most important moral situations. If people in Nazi Germany stood up for what was right, rather than doing what was expedient, things could have been very different.

A fair point. I will back peddle just a little here. While life boat scenarios are not common, war is. Most of human existence evolved with people at war with their neighbors. This is why a number of virtues are directly related to desperate situations, which were not unique. The reason you have notions of “right” vs “expedient” is because the long term survival of the social concern sometimes rests on the short run sacrifices of individual concerns. If it is your family/community and you care (or should care) about them, then failing to act on their behalf in the face of personal hazard is cowardly.

Perhaps if I said it was important to reality itself then we would agree?

No. I am not willing to speculate about what is important to reality itself. The universe brought about consciousness. But the universe also seemingly takes away each consciousness as well. Thus, I could just as easily argue that it is important to the reality itself that your experience be snuffed out.

Your conscious experience is objectively important to you and to those you affect. It is not objectively important to those you do not affect. Food is objectively important to people. Your food is not objectively important to me.

If we were to choose between allowing consciousness to continue to exist and removing consciousness entirely from reality, does the correct judgement rely on context?

Yes. Am I allowing the consciousness of a murderer to continue as he kicks down my door? Or am I allowing random guy’s consciousness on the street to continue by not drinking and driving?

I assume you mean only objectively significant to humans?

No. I would agree that human consciousness disappearing would be objectively significant to a number of living and non-living things that humans have an impact on.

The objective truth of the matter would be that it's important for the person with cancer to have chemo and important that the person who doesn't need chemo doesn't have it. The reason for this importance is because of the effect it has on consciousness.

The reason for this importance varies with the consciousness in question.

Conscious experience has consequences that are of significance, as we know from our own experience. It's like how we assume other people are conscious because we are conscious, we can tell that suffering is of significant consequence because we have felt those consequences ourselves. This is the most important thing to understand and where I think we are talking past each other.

Conscious experience has consequences that are significant to the conscious being having the experience. We know from our own experience that our own conscious experience is important to ourselves. You must value your own conscious experience. You cannot possibly value the conscious experience of a being completely unknown and unaffecting you.

Why must the organizers be sadists? They can be operating from the idea that doing so will benefit humanity.

“The ends justify the means” is most often completely false and is often used by the more powerful of humanities villains to carry out the kinds of programs you suggest. But if our leaders are of the sort to carry out massive sadistic programs, and we allow it, what else might they attempt?

I'm asking why there should be any restrictions on animal testing if the results might help humans.

If it’s going to cure cancer, then that is the kind of aid to humans I am willing to accept. If it is going to help women look slightly prettier for slightly longer, than its not worth the poor animals suffering. Just like most things in life, there are degrees. (I further clarify in the next response below)

Your moral code should, in my perspective, desire to lift all restrictions on animal testing that would provide any benefit to humanity.

If animal cruelty is indicative of a type of person that is detrimental for humanity, then human benefit stemming from cruelty must be sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the detriment posed by a cruel type of person.

It's not a decision based on emotion, it's based on an understanding of what it is like to suffer; the significant consequences.

Why is suffering bad?

Does your reaction to a cat torturing a mouse really have nothing to do with your understanding of the mouse's suffering?

Of course it does. I’m empathetic. I understand that the mouse is suffering and I feel bad. This feeling is the result of an evolutionary process which occurred for the benefit of my own species. Empathy is an important evolutionary trait. How I feel will often guide my responses. But emotions are not sufficient for morality. Empathizing with the suffering of others is not a sufficient foundation for morality because empathy itself is only one aspect of morality and is derived from the same evolutionary process that created other aspects of morality.

just because we can use our understanding of how someone else is feeling in a negative way does not mean that we should, or that it's why it developed.

Traits develop for the advantage they provide, whether the advantage is pleasant or otherwise.

Most people explain their moral behavior in the way I am alluding to "I would not like it if it were done to me".

This is a perfectly reasonable guiding principle when we live in a social world where others will respond to how we act toward them. Acting in a manner that others approve of is of paramount importance to your long term survival and well-being. Just because it doesn’t feel self serving doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Side: Yes

I don't really think women should be in the army at all. Men are naturally stronger than women and women are naturally better at nurturing and care in general.

Side: Yes
WinstonC(1115) Clarified
1 point

While this is true as a general trend, trends don't apply to individual cases; there is more variance between individuals than between groups.

Side: Yes
1 point

Right, but individuals aren't the cause of laws. It's the majority. And the majority of women are better at caring for children then men. On top of that, women can reproduce. Men can't.

Side: No
1 point

If they are willing and able, then they should preform the same roles, but it should not be automatically assumed that they can. Gender aside, if a person is unable to preform the roles required of them then they should be reassigned to an area where they can.

Side: Yes
1 point

Women have the ability to do the things men can do, but most don't qualify for certain positions in the military. If a women wanted to be in the special forces in the military and they won't let her because she fail the strength test and she said it wasn't fair so they changed the rule and let her in then let's say someone gets shot and isn't able to walk and they are in a war zone... It's the girls responsibly to care for the wonder person. The nets say that she can't carry him. What then? There are certain things girls are able to do, but men are better for the job.

Side: Yes
1 point

Dupe

Side: No

I want to VOTE NO But say that women should be able to perform to the best of their ability and not be eXpected to waste their time and others time and money pretending that they are able to perform the duty of another.

I think that woman can bring the Military greatness.

Side: No
1 point

Dupe

Side: Yes
1 point

If the woman in question is just as qualified as the other men in the field, why not? I mean, it's not like all men are stronger than all women.

Side: No
WinstonC(1115) Clarified
1 point

I only meant the women that cannot meet the male standards, those that can should be treated the same as males.

Side: Yes
1 point

In that case, then maybe. But males who also can't meet the standards should be treated the same as the females.

Side: No

If they are allowed in. They have to do the same work as everyone else.

Side: No