CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I mostly like debating about religion but I don't really debate that much about religion because I don't want to go for the whole process to prove some of you wrong. But I am going to take a break with religious debates and extend my knowledge and study my religion a little better.
History, languages, or just plain knowledge. Others surpass me in knowledge of philosophy's history, or in politics, or biology, but nobody around here knows more about languages than do I.
Hmm... That would tend more towards a form of Aristotelean ethics which expresses the fundamental idea that every one should aim to be a virtuous person and achieve eudaimonia (approximate pronunciation). However, the idea of "objectivity" refers to "mind-independence". It is based on this semantical, but important, difference which I might disagree with you on the idea of "objective morality".
Was Aristole not Ayn Rand's basis for much of her philosophy?
Yes, that is true. I'm merely expressing that an Aristotelean philosophy would be quite different from objective morality.
I do not dispute this. I see reality has independent from human cognition.
Since I am more sympathetic towards David Hume's scepticism, I have to respectfully disagree. I am NOT saying that you're wrong. My point is that, to me, anything independent from human experience would probably be non-falsifiable (i.e. can neither be proven nor disproven).
I was mistaken, I assumed you were asking what a moral action would be.
I think it was my diction that caused the confusion.
Definitely. Well, that is my honest perspective. But, morality is a really interesting topic for discussion. I believe that another philosopher you might be interested in is Alasdair MacIntyre. He is quite famous for almost reviving the virtue theory.
It sure is. I wish non-religious morality was debated much more on this site.
I agree. Although I am very much influenced by David Hume, I find his work on non-cognitivism extremely sophisticated. In terms of moral philosophy, I would tend towards a sort of amalgamation of both Kantian and utilitarian ethics, though this is often very difficult. I try to justify my ethical views often based on both perspectives.
I was once a supporter of Utilitarian morality. I rid myself of it due to the fact that high school debate judges didn't respond well to it, can't remember the explanation I was given as to why. As for Kant, it has been a while since I've seen his name in something other then an Ayn Rand essay. It is a shame such men are forgotten for what seems like the most part.
I was once a supporter of Utilitarian morality. I rid myself of it due to the fact that high school debate judges didn't respond well to it, can't remember the explanation I was given as to why.
I don't think that is a very good reason for you to abandon utilitarian philosophy. You should read works by Prof. Peter Singer. It may convince you.
As for Kant, it has been a while since I've seen his name in something other then an Ayn Rand essay.
As far as I'm concerned, I am quite a big supporter of Kantian ethics. I just need to formulate better justifications for my ethical views based on Kantian ethics.
Sorry, it was the initial reason I branched out to other philosophies. At the time all I knew were the umbrella terms like deontology.
I'm glad that you did that. I firmly believe that if you didn't, we wouldn't be sharing this conversation, and I wouldn't have a great debater as a friend today!
That's the best part of true philosophy in my opinion, how one can be content with a canned philosophy like religion I can't imagine.
Yes. I believe that one philosopher (R.M. Hare, if I'm not mistaken) has tried to combine both utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Well, ethical systems have always been the subject of hot debate between philosophers. However, I do think that all ethical systems have some basic common points of agreement. That is my main fascination with the great Cambridge philosopher Prof. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who is constantly looking for "family resemblances".
" I firmly believe that if you didn't, we wouldn't be sharing this conversation"
You'd be correct. Yay for biased debate judges.
"I wouldn't have a great debater as a friend today!"
Thank you. Glad to be able to communicate with one as intelligent as yourself.
"utilitarianism and deontological ethics."
It's been a while since I've cracked open work from Mill, but from what I remember Utlilitarianism was more along the lines of consequentialism. That any means was justified as long as the greatest utility was met.
A blessing in disguise, then! I don't like judges that have pre-conceived notions about a person's views and/or abilities. I firmly believe that in making a judgement, one should operate, to quote the philosopher John Rawls, operate behind "a veil of ignorance."
Thank you. Glad to be able to communicate with one as intelligent as yourself.
The honour is mine.
It's been a while since I've cracked open work from Mill, but from what I remember Utlilitarianism was more along the lines of consequentialism. That any means was justified as long as the greatest utility was met.
Yes, that is true. Mill's book is surprisingly understandable for a book written by a child prodigy. My initial oppositions to the utilitarian perspective was that the idea of utility was "happiness" or "lack of suffering and pain". I saw it as a blatant appeal to emotion, which cannot be used to justify a lot of our philosophical views. But, we must understand that moral particularists offer very different perspectives from generalists like Kant. Furthermore, I would think that particularism (i.e. loosely translated, morality is contingent on the societal expectations) is, in itself, a moral law!
"John Rawls, operate behind "a veil of ignorance."
This is in the middle of Missouri, waist deep in the bible belt. If anything was constant in supply, it was ignorance ;). But in seriousness Rawl and Hobbes were my starting point, with researching into Hobbes leading me to the great Enlightened thinkers.
"happiness" or "lack of suffering and pain"
The definition I used was "the amount of good, or the net positive result, in a situation".
"particularism (i.e. loosely translated, morality is contingent on the societal expectations) is, in itself, a moral law!"
I think I would disagree there, as from what I see it doesn't have anything to say about the validity of that morality.
This is in the middle of Missouri, waist deep in the bible belt. If anything was constant in supply, it was ignorance ;)
Haha! Great double pun!
But in seriousness Rawl and Hobbes were my starting point, with researching into Hobbes leading me to the great Enlightened thinkers.
I'm not too familiar with Hobbes, unfortunately. My initial dip into the depths of philosophy was through reading about David Hume's scepticism.
The definition I used was "the amount of good, or the net positive result, in a situation".
I think that this wasn't the definition posited by Mill.
I think I would disagree there, as from what I see it doesn't have anything to say about the validity of that morality.
My position is entirely controversial, I'll admit. I haven't got round to actually proving it yet. It is just a conjecture and/or speculation on my part.
He advocated an absolute monarchy. I think the test of time has shown us all we need to see when it comes to such states.
Absolutely.
I remember arguing that the two definitions didn't exclude each other, but as I said it has been a while since I've dusted off Mill's work.
I tend to agree. But the main reason why I question Mill's utilitarianism is because of the idea of happiness is supposed to determine whether something is moral or not.
Can't wait to see it after ReventonRage magic does its work.
What do you believe to be a better measure of what makes a moral action if not the greatest amount of happiness in a situation?
Just take a look at the other 3 "conventional" ethical theories - Aristotelean virtue, Hume's non-cognitivism and Kant's deontology. It seems to me that the greatest amount of happiness doesn't exactly amount to a very good argument because it is a mere appeal to emotion. Furthermore, how are we to quantify this utility? And what is the time scale by which we are to quantify happiness?
Not necesarly. You could go the Sam Harris route and claim happiness can be determined through evolution. I guess it all depends on the definition of happiness one strives for.
"Furthermore, how are we to quantify this utility?"
Happiness is determined by the individual. If one does an action that increases the level to which he enjoys life while not defying the natural rights of others, with such restraint existing because it be in the individual's self interest to do so, would that action not be moral? I don't see the greatest utility for the greatest number of Mill's vision as a logical stance, but I see utility based on the fulfillment of self interest by the majority of individuals capable of doing so a quite sound position.
Which doesn't exclude the appeal to happiness from being an appeal to emotion.
If one does an action that increases the level to which he enjoys life while not defying the natural rights of others, with such restraint existing because it be in the individual's self interest to do so, would that action not be moral?
No. For example, lying for your own benefit can cause one to be happy, but it does not mean that the act of lying or the intent of doing so makes the action moral.
I don't see the greatest utility for the greatest number of Mill's vision as a logical stance
And thus, by definition, you aren't a utilitarian.
I see utility based on the fulfillment of self interest by the majority of individuals capable of doing so a quite sound position.
"Which doesn't exclude the appeal to happiness from being an appeal to emotion."
But if happiness is shown to be the product of evolution of both society and our species, how would it be an appeal to emotion?
If an appeal to emotion is defined as a:
potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument.
With evolution of us as a species and society as the basis, it leaves the realm of fallacy.
"lying for your own benefit can cause one to be happy, but it does not mean that the act of lying or the intent of doing so makes the action moral"
As long as the lie doesn't lead to the violation of one's rights or causes the recipient of the lie to do so, there is nothing morally wrong with the action, and if it causes an increase in the amount of happiness you experience then it would be moral. The incentive for not lying in scenarios like this should be the consequences arising because of the action, thus putting honesty in an individual's rational self interest.
"I fail to see the significance."
I was just explaining the reason I still claim to advocate the maximum utility outside of what was proposed by Mill.
I prefer debates about new technologies and their implications for society or current domestic issues. I try to avoid the abortion debates generally but I do participate occasionally. The religious debates are also amusing if not overtly intellectual.
I am really interested in Taboo Topics. Talking about something that is disturbing but not severly disturbing interests me. Also, i like to discuss about interesting theories like the brain in a vat theory.