Instigator / Pro
11
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2643

Kantian Ethics vs Utilitarianism

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Description

BOP is evenly shared.
Pro will argue for Kantian Ethics.
Con will argue for Utilitarian Ethics.
Free will is assumed.

The crux of the discrepancy in these moral theories is the focus on consequences in determining the moral value of an action.

The judges should look to determine which moral theory is more persuasive.

I hope this turns out to be a fun debate!

-->
@Undefeatable

Thank you for this debate

-->
@Sum1hugme

I was very close to tying my vote as well... Close debate indeed

-->
@MisterChris
@Undefeatable
@Benjamin

A two vote tie lol...Philosophy in a nutshell.

-->
@Sum1hugme

So there are not a rule #8543904835?

-->
@Benjamin

Haha I mean comment #74

-->
@Sum1hugme

#74???

What about # 8543904835

-->
@Benjamin

Let me use Ragnar's explanation, as it's pretty thorough:

"Conduct
Optional. One point

Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating.

The disrespect of even a single forfeiture, necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments.

Invalid if: both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike for the topical contentions, or arguing weakly.

Further notes
Points neither awarded nor commented upon, are considered wholly ungraded. Generally this is fine, as is remarking on something but leaving it within the tied range even if leaning a certain way. However, exploitive withholding of any category overwhelmingly against your majority point awardee, is evidence of profuse bias, so is therefore subject to vote deletion (e.g., someone forfeits half the debate and receives a favorable argument vote unmitigated by conduct).
With the exception of arguments, certain things are naturally implied by their absence of remarks...
Such as: If only one side forfeited, the other side showing up warrants no comment as it is implied. If one side made an argument illegible, so long as the other side did ok, pointing out issues of just one side implies the other did not make the same mistakes.
It is necessary to explain all awarded points, but a mitigating point against your primary point recipient need not be as detailed for the vote to remain if not good, at least borderline.
A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested.
With regards to the subjective nature of voting, often arguments are exceedingly close. A good voter might change who they would determine the winner of that metric week to week if they reevaluated the debate. However, if awarding other points, it should be for a clear and decisive margin of victory."

-->
@Benjamin

See #72

-->
@MisterChris

What is the "conduct" point then?

-->
@Benjamin

It's fine, just something to keep in mind for future votes

-->
@Benjamin

No worries. Honestly, just happy you re-voted. Would hate to dissuade you from voting due to something like this, and I know we all appreciate seeing more votes on debates.

-->
@whiteflame
@MisterChris
@Undefeatable

I have revoted.

Sorry, this was my first vote. I am not used to voting.

-->
@Undefeatable
@Benjamin

You are correct, Undefeatable. For future reference, Benjamin, appealing to emotion is a basis for questioning a debater's logic, but it's not a basis for awarding a conduct point. The conduct point is only awarded in cases where one side forfeited or was clearly acting rudely within the debate.

-->
@Benjamin

If you want to revote, you have about an hour and a half left to do so.

First of all, they were discussing ETHICS, not MORALITY. Ethics is the set of principles on which a society bases their actions. Morality on the other hand is how individuals and groups actually act. A morally good action is one that acts according to the ethical principles. In the context of this debate the two words were uses interchangeably.

THE THEORIES:
Ethics need to propose two things: A. principles of how to act and B. reason, motivation or authority backing up the principles.

Pro arguably nailed point B, by actually providing a universal set of principles on which all humans should be able to agree. He successfully proved that ethics is about DUTY - a point which is shared by the Judeo Christian values on which human rights and western morality is based upon. When it comes to point A, con arguably put up a more flexible set of principles - effectively making it possible for individuals to make completely different deciccions and still be called morally good. However as Pro pointed out that ethical systems are to create coherence and an objective standard rather than being a mathematical equation. Con failed to explain in a sufficient manner what a "greater good" is as compared to a lesser good. Thus undermining his argument. Cons argument that Kantian ethics make impossible individual variation was succesfully rebuted by Pro - when he said that there is a difference between an action and a moral action. However Pro failed to explain what the difference what. The arguments from con definately felt more convincing at the time I read them, but I thought about it and the ultimate victor with regards to arguments was Pro. Well done both of you.

CONDUCT:
Pro got a slight advantage with both conduct and sources - however I will give only 1 point to Pro for this.
Basically, con used a lot of arguments that could be considered emmotionally charged or based on current morality.
For example, he criticised Kantian ethics for oppressing homosexuals. Regardless of whether or not that is true - this argument is based not on reasoning but emmotion. The only weight behind this argument is the emotion it carries - let me explain. Kantian ethics oppresses the minority "terrorists" - but that is not an argument against Kantian ethics. So the only reason why oppressing "homosexuals" actually makes a difference is that people have an emmotional and cultural connection to that minority.

AKA - Con says: kantian ethics would create a different culture than the one we live in now - so kantian ethics is unethical.

Regardless of wheter or not this (and similar cases) was intentional, they put Con's conduct slightly below Pros by appealing to emmotion.

CONCLUSION:
A slight advantage in conduct and a big advantage in arguments made me choose to vote for Pro.

-->
@Benjamin

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4:0 (4 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See comments
>Reason for Mod Action:

The voter did not properly justify the conduct point allotment. Appealing to emotion as a tactic is not excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules. Please revote while fulfilling the voting requirements.

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

-->
@MisterChris
@Benjamin

I’m not 100% sure you’re allowed to allot conduct point this way. Doesn’t mention anything about emotion...

-->
@Sum1hugme

You are welcome.

-->
@Benjamin

Thank you for voting

-->
@Reece101

I don't know any debater that doesn't want votes on their debates, so it's definitely not that we don't like you voting. We just need more detailed commentary from you than some vague sentences... Ultimately you've got to hit the targets I set out for you here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2643/comment-links/34219

You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.

-->
@MisterChris

How many petitions does there have to be before my vote doesn’t get taken down?

-->
@Undefeatable

Hope you find it helpful. Sometimes simplicity is your friend yknow

-->
@MisterChris

nice feedback. I agree that my rounds were getting kind of muddy, but as you noted, Pro didn't tackle my most important point, which was partially why I was struggling to stack more and more ideas (since the core wasn't defeated).

(Also, ironically I thought IV was my strongest argument, but it's only strong without considering Utlitarianism lol.)

-->
@Reece101

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Reece101 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:2 (2 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
Both Pro and Con didn’t fully flush out their premises. They weren’t getting to the root of their arguments.

Which participant provided the most reliable sources?
Neither provided sources. Not necessarily a bad thing in this context.

Which participant had better spelling and grammar?
Although I don’t put emphasis on spelling/grammar, I found a few large mistakes with Pro’s wording.

Which participant had better conduct?
Many of Pro’s replies were underhanded towards Con and the spectators."

>Reason for Mod Action:

Collectively 9,000 words of argument can not be rendered a tie in one vague sentence.

There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes

For the S&G point allotment, the voter needs to specify the mistakes PRO made, and justify their allotment of points according to voter guidelines.

To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.

Additionally, the conduct point was not properly justified at all.

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

-->
@Sum1hugme

No problem. It was a tough debate to get through but I'm glad I was able to render the decision

-->
@MisterChris

Thank you for your vote

-->
@Reece101

Ive never been one to make a stink about losing, but what specific wording did you have a problem with?

-->
@Reece101

Hmm, your conduct violation seems unfair. I engaged his position directly.

-->
@Reece101

come on, sum1 wasn't *that* underhanded.

-->
@Sum1hugme

No problem. It'll be a challenge to get through as I'm pretty unfamiliar with the topic, though. I'm through the first few rounds but it's slow going. Will have it up tomorrow I believe, but it'll be rather close to the vote period end date.

-->
@MisterChris

Win or lose, I appreciate your taking the time.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Thanks, starting on it now.

-->
@MisterChris

Close enough to 6 I think

-->
@MisterChris

Can do

-->
@Sum1hugme

Ping me at around 6 PM EST just in case I forget to get started on this

Vote bump

I really wish I could edit debate voting windows after they start.

-->
@Sum1hugme

I am starting my work week today... 1 month seems a lot safer, as potential votes are less of an everyday thing, but more of what days voters have free that they want to spent time critiquing. For me, at least for complex debates, that is during my weekends if I am not busy with other things, so a two-week voting window only gives a couple potential chances.

-->
@Sum1hugme

not sure about other people, but I've been so occupied with finals I've had 0 time for debating ;-;

-->
@MisterChris

I'd appreciate it. I guess I should start choosing 30-day voting. Because it seems like nobody notices in two Weeks even though I vote bump all the time.

-->
@Sum1hugme

this is long, I'll see if I can get to it.

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris
@Fruit_Inspector

Please consider voting. It would be a shame to let all this hard work to go to waste.

Vote bump

Anyone plan on voting on this? 3 days left

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

Vote bump

-->
@Theweakeredge

totally understandable