Instigator / Pro
20
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic

My "Triumvirate Moral System" is Logically Sound

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
15
Sources points
10
10
Spelling and grammar points
5
5
Conduct points
5
4

With 5 votes and 14 points ahead, the winner is ...

A_Jason_I_Einstein_M
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
34
1469
rating
7
debates
28.57%
won
Description
~ 442 / 5,000

What is the "Triumvirate" moral system as I name it?

Idea: Say you want to know if an action is moral or not. You run it through each moral system below, whatever the majority say is moral is likely more moral than not. I think this is a sound idea.

1. Utilitarianism
2. Kantian Ethics
3. Virtue Theory

Why is it called "Triumvirate"? It simulates Mill, Kant and Aristotle at a table discussing the best option possible in a moral dilemma.

Round 1
Pro
My argument is simple. Each of the moral systems have a flaw that is complemented by another moral system to fix the issues and create the most moral action.  

Utilitarianism looks good on basis but it's hard for anyone to truly be altruistic. Most people look out for themselves. This is where Kant and Virtue comes in to combine together to ask whether the action itself can be good or not. Kant's universalism can seem at odds with Utilitarian ideals, so this is where a virtuous action comes into play and you can think if the characteristic can be upheld or not. Finally, virtuous actions may not consider all ideas possible, and so we evaluate the results with Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. It works out.
Con
Greetings .

Let me begin by concluding my opponent's speech before continuing my argument. Based on his argumentation , he thinks each moral system could compensate for the flaw of another one. Indeed , it sounds fascinating if all decisions could be founded on this “Triumvirate”. However , as if Newton’s law could not be applied to light , this theory could not be applied to many cases. 

Firstly , Kantian Ethics which is also known as deontology and Utilitarianismis actually a paradox. An action always can pass through the first round but not the gate of Utilitarianism's. For example , a war in deontology is wrong but based on Utilitarianism is right. In this moment what will be the choice based on the Triumvirate Moral System. 

Second , I need to take an exam tmr so yea I will rebuttal your argument. 









  1. Definition of kantian ethics http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml


Round 2
Pro
I will admit that Virtue ethics has no 100% clear decision in any outcome. But that is precisely where the personal flexibility would come through. There are certain virtues that Aristotle holds for all humanity, such as honesty, kindness, bravery, so on and so forth. The personal ability to choose the virtues to justify their decision will be able to compensate for seeming flaws within utilitarian versus Kantian nature. For example, if the war is on terrorism, then you could support the characteristic of freedom and rights to justify the war. On the other hand, if there is only a "net benefit" for war and you do not think it would be wise to join the war, then you do not have to go through the war due to virtue ethics. As you can see, the third flexible moral system fixes the problems when the first two clash against each other.
Con
Round 2 

Greetings. Sorry for responding late these days. Due to examinations , I am quite busy these days. Just apologize for that first. 

Let me begin by mentioning what is the inconsistency of theories. Firstly , theories are usually based on numerous posits. The number less presumptions , the more useful the theory is. As a result , we could basically assume Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics are the foundation of your “Triumvirate Moral System “ while the virtual theory is set as a compensation. 

Firstly , as aforementioned and was conceded by my opponent , Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics is contradictory on the level of nature. As opponents have already admitted , it would be better to illustrate why Utilitarianism is a paradoxical to virtual theory. Virtual theory means a moral action based on his or her own traits . Utilitarianism considers an action is moral based on maximus the benefit of society. As two theories can not mutually exist for instance some people characteristic is individualism while this “Triumvirate” Moral System can not help him to make a right decision. 

Based on this approach the “Triumvirate Moral System” is not logical .

Round 3
Pro
I concede.
Con

Thank you my opponent for accepting that based on logical approach is nonsense to the system vote con.

Round 4
Pro
cri
Con
Nice debate haha add friend pls