CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
1
Yes No
Debate Score:4
Arguments:4
Total Votes:4
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (3)
 
 No (1)

Debate Creator

Srom(12206) pic



Can morality exist without empathy or concern for well-being?

Yes

Side Score: 3
VS.

No

Side Score: 1
1 point

Morality is arbitrary ethics. If you don't care about others, your morality may have more concern for the environment, or maybe you are against scarring yourself for some moral reason.

Morality is nice and all, but it doesn't define any neurological aspects of humanity. Morality is the result of the human mind, not the other way around.

People who lack empathy will just have a morality that avoided that concern.

Side: Yes
bewell(1) Disputed
1 point

First, though you correctly pointed out that empathy and concern are not neurological, the point is moot because morality is not neurological either. I think the best way to start is to define morality. To me, morality is doing what is inherently right for one's self, whether it be within the confines of the law or not. At first glance, that definition alone certainly does not necessarily encompass empathy or concern, but when applied situationally the three are generally compatible. Now, I would say certainly it is possible for a person to consider themselves moral and not take an interest in others, but, as you mentioned, an avoidance of humans doesn't discount empathy or concern for animals or the environment. If a person's social construction of reality is to have reverence for entities other than their fellow man, it stands to reason that they would apply their empathy and concern to what they hold dear. If someone picks up a piece of trash because they care about the environment, then the environment would be the focus of those noted emotions. Also, empathy is not to be confused with sympathy. Empathy means an understanding of another's situation or experience. I would offer that no person can NOT relate to another person or entities experience ever. We may harbor unique ideas, but the ability to relate is basic. Case in point: a person feels alone, so they loose themselves in books or television. Thus they create an alternate reality within those mediums where they can escape said loneliness and find characters to relate to and care about. Decidedly as each person's morality deviates from the social norm, it may be harder to see how the three concepts tie in, but I contend there is always a connection. I believe that a person's morality can in fact be partly defined by empathy and concern for others when the "others" is loosely defined.

Side: No
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

the point is moot because morality is not neurological either

Morality, empathy, and concern are all formed via neurological processes. I never said that one was neurological and the other wasn't.

morality is doing what is inherently right for one's self, whether it be within the confines of the law or not

I'd say doing what is inherently right TO one's self. Morality in a person can be to do what's right for others and not thyself. Now, I do believe that even altruistic behavior is for one's own benefit (to not feel guilt or other negative feelings), however morality without dissection on the true existence of altruism doesn't have to be "for" one's self.

an avoidance of humans doesn't discount empathy or concern for animals or the environment

empathy towards animals... maybe. Humans that believe they can empathize with animals do not understand the minds of animals. A psychologist that spends a lot of time with apes may be able to get an idea, but enough to "empathize" is sketchy. As for the environment... the environment doesn't even have any thought processes.

One can be concerned for the well-being of animals or the environment, and with that wording, sure, morality has a sense of concern. But that was one of a few points I was making.

I believe that a person's morality can in fact be partly defined by empathy and concern for others when the "others" is loosely defined.

Caring about something exists in everything that has a thought process. In this case, everyone is "concerned" for the "well-being" of "something." However, empathy does not exist in sociopaths, and I would suggest their own morality is whatever they find important (maybe a world with less of the people they hate is what they find morally right.) Obama is a sociopath that strives for money and power, his moral concern is for his own benefit (same with most other politicians). He may care about his family, but it may not be empathetic, it's probably because he feels that he owns them and they provide for his personality as a "good person." This is often found with sociopaths that get married and have kids.

Side: Yes

I am sure it is possible to develope a moral that is independent on the well being of others or self or of any sentient life. Morality that is purely based upon religion of those whom claim well-being has nothing to do with morality, their morals, are still technically morals.

Side: Yes
No arguments found. Add one!