CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS Jamelaur

Reward Points:6
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:6
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
6 most recent arguments.
1 point

if you jump into a river to save a drowning child, but get cold and wet and the child drowns anyway. it is in immoral act by your argument because both parties experienced negative outcomes.

1 point

Utilitarianism at its heart believes that all people are equal however this doesn't make any sense all people are different and thus all people cant be equal. Is it more moral to save two people who are going to die in a year then a doctor that is going to save lives. To rescue two incredibly smart people or three people that arent going to do anything with their life. i think that it s clear that the moral thing to do is to save the few in both these situations. if you have a hundred sentient rabits or one human who do you save, the many or the few?

1 point

Although Kantian ethics contradicts itself it is easier to use in any situation then utilitarianism, due to not being able to see the future utilitarianism is useless as a guide for what is a moral action, because you cannot know what is moral when you act.

1 point

Kantian ethics is the more useful moral philosophy because it doesn't take consequences into account. utilitarianism insistence on the future being able to judge the moral worth of your acts doesn't make any sense. You cannot predict the future so when you act you cant now what is moral, as knowing what to do is what a moral theory is for utilitarianism is useless as a moral theory.

1 point

If you try to save someones life by running into a burning building but cannot save them surely that is more moral that just letting them die. Thus someones intention have a clear difference to whether or not something is moral regardless of the consequences. if this is so then morals can not be based on the consequences of the action.

1 point

A moral philosophy is supposed to tell you what is the right thing to do. Utilitarianism doesn't do this because of the shades of gray that are involved. Utilitarianism means that you cannot know what to do in a situation because calculating net happiness is to difficult for the everyday. Even after the calculation what you do may not turn out to be moral if something you haven't added to the calculation happens. An example of this is if someone saved a girl from being hit by a bus by running across the road and grabbing it from the path of the oncoming vehicle, however the bus swerves and hits a cafe causing the death of three people.

was the decision to act the correct one? i think what the man did was most definitely moral, he cant see into the future, yet a utilitarian view means that the mans action was immoral.

Jamelaur has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here