By combining the moral systems in the description, you achieve the best action possible
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Idea: Say you want to know if something is moral or not. You run it through each moral system below, whatever the majority say is moral is likely more moral than not.
3. Kantian Theory
4. Virtue Ethics
5. Cultural relativism
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce. Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the number of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the number of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They defenestrate moral codes or systems that consist of commands or sins based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. For instance, religious quarrels: they cannot be stopped and cannot be altered according to the society. Even if someone makes an attempt at it, they’ll fail miserably.
Kantian ethics provides no specific information about what people should do because Kant’s moral law is solely a principle of non-contradiction – GWF Hegel.
Virtue ethics, it is an aim with its emphasis on the inaccurate nature of ethics. This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. It fails to give us any help with the facts of how we should behave. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Most of these examples are dismissed by other morals listed.
Religious quarrels are indeed impossible to stop. People have the right to religion, but are they being allowed to practice it freely? For example, the Uyghur Muslim community in China is being forced to disobey their religion. Hindus in Pakistan are being forcefully converted into Muslims. A God in one religion may be considered a murderer in another. Hence, there is no question on constructive arguments as it will be nowhere constructive due to the completely opposite views of the 2 communities.
The point has been missed completely here: if there were no poor people, more people would be able to buy products. As products would become scarce, vendors would have to raise the price of products. People with less money wouldn’t be able to afford everything they need and would be considered poor again. This is the perfect example that portrays that the 5 morals do not work and will put the person in a loop. There is no need to say more as this example alone proves that combining the 5 morals does not provide any outcome. It puts the whole situation in a loop where the events repeat themselves and no actual solution is found to the problem.
Let's understand the example once again. Poor people mainly comprise of farmers, merchants, artists etc. Let's consider farmers who are the most hard working but still poor. If they become rich, they would no longer be farming. They might use their plot of land for construction purposes leaving no land for plants to grow. Therefore, resources become scarce. The idea of products becoming scarce isn't "nonsense". Google and Facebook aren't basic needs but food is!
Pro has not addressed how religion is a right but how people (the Uyghur Muslim Community and Pakistani Hindus) are not being allowed to practice that right.
Pro's conclusion is very unintelligent. Pro accepts that following the moral philosophies is like going in a circle proving my point that following these steps will get a person nowhere and that it is truly based on luck and chance. Pro also says that moving in a circle improves your health, stamina etc but it is not permanent and ultimately the person will return to his initial position. I stand by what I said : following the 5 morals will get you nowhere and gives no permanent solution to a problem.