- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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?
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!