Instigator / Pro
0
1469
rating
341
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#3614

We ought to live by the maxim that the ends justify the means.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

This is open season, free for all, equal opportunity.

Come on with it.

Round 1
Pro
#1
An illustration from a movie where the hostage is shot to save him.

A person running a red light to avoid a rear collision.

A person undergoing bodily amputation to save their life.

Being firmly assertive regardless of feelings to obtain the attention of someone for something constructive to be done.

So when we're talking about what justify the means, some may call it doing the wrong things for the right reasons or results.

What side of the coin do you see?

Doing wrong to get what's right or getting what's right makes the particular path to get it , right.

We should live and do live by doing what is to be done to get the results necessary.

That's justification and of course we weigh the pros and cons.

I could be a drug dealer. Make a huge profit to do good with it.

What kind of drug dealer? Do I have to deal drugs?
This is the question of where it is justified comes in at.

We can think of many situations where the result has claim on the cause to be a justified cause.

We ought to and already do live in this manner.


Con
#2
Resolved: We ought to live by the maxim that the ends justify the means.

x. Default to con
  • We must be aware that pro holds the entire burden of proof in this debate, and the resolution as a typical baseline, defaults to the position of con if the affirmative debater fails to sufficiently uphold such burden and thus, the resolution. 

y. The resolution
  • We also must observe that the resolution holds no specification that limits the scope of our deliberation, or outlines specifications within the topic of discussion. In light of such, pro must argue that in the examination of any situation pertaining to the individual, and society at large, we ought to live by the maxim "the ends justify the means."

z. The end justifies the means
  • Pro has also not properly defined what "the ends justify the means," entails. 
  • Pro is proposing that we ought to live according to this maxim proposed by Niccolo Machiavelli. In order to argue the notion, we require from pro first, a moral framework that establishes a coherent range of moral importance as well as an argument indicating the validity and soundness of said moral framework. 
  • Pro has proposed neither, and conclusively, his entire case of round one can be effectively discarded. 
Let's analyze some of the particulars of pro's case
We ought to and already do live in this manner.
  • First, just because we already do something, does that mean we ought to do so? Many people commit murder and rape, but that does not entail we ought to do these things. Mall has not made an argument for what we ought to do. We can subsequently observe this with examples: 
a. A person running a red light to avoid a rear collision.
b. A person undergoing bodily amputation to save their life.
  • These are things people can do certainly, but what makes it true that we ought to act in such a manner? Maybe it is the case that people do these things to achieve ends that are subjectively desirable to them, but just because something is the case, why does that mean that it ought to be that way? This is, of course, the is-ought gap in manifestation. 

I. Practicality/Consequentialism
  • The maxim of our debate is undoubtedly an application of consequentialism
  • Either acceptable ends are objective, individual, or societal.
  • Mall has not proven the former, and his examples seem to suggest the mode of individual relativism as opposed to cultural or societal relativism. This stipulates the case where the individual can supersede the regulations of society if their conception of desirable ends meaningfully differs, take the example of a woman murdering her husband because the end of wishing her husband dead justifies the means of achieving such. In essence, Mall argues that people ought to act in ways that deter from civility and order or social interactions and entails a state in which we lack the discretion to act coordinatively. 

Case conclusions
  1. Pro is making an ought statement, and must functionally bridge the is-ought gap divide.
  2. Pro is making a moral claim and must posit a framework of moral acceptability.
  3. Lastly, an absence of 1 and 2 default us to cultural relativism. Pro in this case must show how the actualization of individual conceptions of desirable ends will create a society that is desirable to inhabit, and as I have shown, this is far from the case.




Round 2
Pro
#3
"Pro has also not properly defined what "the ends justify the means," entails. "

I'm so sorry you're having difficulty in what I'm saying.

Basically it just means the end result determines the action to be correct. I think that's what I meant where I said the result has claim on the cause to be a justified cause.

"Pro is proposing that we ought to live according to this maxim proposed by Niccolo Machiavelli."

I'm not proposing it because we already do . So my position is, that statement is true. Your position is that it is false.

One example is I live by eating vegetables and exercise. Now because of the results of those two things, the procedure I take to get those results are justified. If you want proof of that , we can go there.

"In order to argue the notion, we require from pro first, a moral framework that establishes a coherent range of moral importance as well as an argument indicating the validity and soundness of said moral framework. "

I just gave you an example above. Pretty much case closed for showing an everyday case of living by the topic statement. The statement holds true.

I'll give you another example. The result of not having emphysema shows justification of taking the act to resist cigarette smoking.

"Pro has proposed neither, and conclusively, his entire case of round one can be effectively discarded. "

Either you ignored the first round or just didn't understand it. I don't know why you can't speak up when you don't understand something.

"First, just because we already do something, does that mean we ought to do so? "

Possibly. Like I said, is what I'm saying true or not ?

Just because someone says something should be done, it doesn't mean people aren't doing so already and what is healthy to do hence why the "should" is there.

For example, people should go to school. People should live healthy.

Does this mean these statements aren't true and active?

See, if you're just barely thinking at the surface level when you see debate topics like these, you won't avoid getting caught up in what is really sensible in which you suspected was not.

"Many people commit murder and rape, but that does not entail we ought to do these things."

Futile point, has nothing to do with my position.

"Mall has not made an argument for what we ought to do. "

You ought to recant this statement now.

"We can subsequently observe this with examples: "

Looks like you are doing so a line later. You spoke too soon.

"a. A person running a red light to avoid a rear collision.
b. A person undergoing bodily amputation to save their life."

"These are things people can do certainly, but what makes it true that we ought to act in such a manner?"

Let's answer based off the examples. I want the result of avoiding a rear collision, I should follow example "a".

I want to save my life in which the way is amputation.

Is it starting to click now ?

"Maybe it is the case that people do these things to achieve ends that are subjectively desirable to them, but just because something is the case, why does that mean that it ought to be that way? "

Hey I think you are starting to catch on but let me give you a little boost here.
I believe you understand what cause and effect are. The actions and results.

There is no other way to get a result than the way it has to be to get it. This is what I was saying in the first round. You quite didn't catch on.

I'll reiterate the following.

We should live and do live by doing what is to be done to get the results necessary.

"This is, of course, the is-ought gap in manifestation. "

Hopefully we bridged it for you. I do appreciate all the questions. That is what really opens our minds to try to understand something versus only combating it so kudos on that.

"Mall has not proven the former, and his examples seem to suggest the mode of individual relativism as opposed to cultural or societal relativism. "

Certainly proven the topic statement.

"take the example of a woman murdering her husband because the end of wishing her husband dead justifies the means of achieving such. "

We can live by the end result justifying the cause of method without applying it in all cases.

Now your rebuttal might be, by that statement I put, I agree that we should not or it is false to live by the topic statement.

But I clearly just gave examples in where we can live by it. Keyword"live" so we can't live by something based on the picture you just promoted. We'd compromise our existence, perhaps inevitably perish.

But we can live by the topic statement based on the illustrations I've given making the statement valid.
Also just to cover your content with the word "should ", when talking about what we should live by, naturally, we should do the things that account for us living.

"Mall argues that people ought to act in ways that deter from civility and order or social interactions and entails a state in which we lack the discretion to act coordinatively."

Never said any of that . You can't find one word of that in the description or the first round. This is where when you don't know a person's position in detail, you're going to have to step up and ask them.

"Pro is making an ought statement, and must functionally bridge the is-ought gap divide."

Done so.

"Pro is making a moral claim and must posit a framework of moral acceptability."

That's completely false. Let me nip this in the bud. Even if I were to start arguing about ethics, right and wrong, I suspect your next question would be, why is such and such right or wrong?

I can see that. You can ask who am I to say what is right and wrong and all like that but my friend, we're basically talking cause and effect.

"Pro in this case must show how the actualization of individual conceptions of desirable ends will create a society that is desirable to inhabit, and as I have shown, this is far from the case."

Done so.




Con
#4
The is-ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be) and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine
  • Pro continues to state things people can do, or things people do, however, he does not attempt to bridge the is-ought gap and explain why we ought to act in such ways as the resolution stipulates. His incoherent rambling should be considered at best and discarded subsequently.
We should live and do live by doing what is to be done to get the results necessary.
  • What makes it true that we ought to live by the maxim the end justifies the means? No argument was made for this, and I certainly hope pro does not make an argument for such in order to make an easy voter decision. 

z.1 Moral framework

I. Practicality/Consequentialism
  • Dropped, Extend. 
  • Either acceptable ends are objective, individual, or societal.
  • Pro has not affirmed anyone in specific but has made notions towards the individual, suggesting that people ought to subvert any form of order society has for their own personal conceptions of subjective value and pleasure, thus, the example of the woman murdering her husband because the end of wishing her husband dead justifies the means of achieving such within her values. Pro must hold a sufficient counter for ethical subjectivism in his claim that we ought to live by the ends justify the means, and without an ethical framework which he denies he must provide, his position entails the degradation of society.


Round 3
Pro
#5
I will take a different avenue in this session rather than continuing duplicate points in a duplicate debate debating the same individual.

I want to deal with what people do already and how there are present day examples of evidence to back up the topic statement.

You want to talk about "should".
This topic should not be in debate.

Everyday the truth of this topic is going on everywhere.

For instance with our 911 emergencies and emergency services.

Which we do live by to preserve lives by the way.

It is justified for someone to place a 911 call.

911 operator: "What's your emergency?"

The operator is justified in asking that question.

The caller answers and requests an ambulance, the police, the fire station.

The result is the rescue or safety of a life.

Are you going to say if you make a call like this it wouldn't be justified?

The end result is somebody coming to your aid for survival, you better believe the means were correct.

Why should anybody live like this?

Well they want to live. So they do these justifiable things. They do what is to be done to get the outcome.

Anytime you are dealing with the word "should", it has to do with what necessitates the cause for its effect.

In other words , justifiable means to an end or its end.

Pretty close to the phrasing of the topic title.



Con
#6
  • Pro holds the burden of proof for the claim and proposition "we ought to live by the maxim that the ends justify the means." Pro continues to state things people do, but this is not an argument that people ought to do these things. If pro fails to bridge over Hume's guillotine this point continues to be extended. The voting decisions seem simple from here.

z.1 Moral framework
  • None provided, extend (see z.1 from round two as well as z from round one)

I. Practicality/Consequentialism
  • Dropped. Extend (see I. from rounds 1 & 2).

Round 4
Pro
#7
Well let the record show you put forth no rebuttal to what was said. I don't blame you because it's all true. All those points are true and realistic.

This gives me another idea for a debate topic.

But you ignore what was said. You can at least say you agree or disagree. You don't even do that.

If it's not good enough for you, you say "that isn't an argument", "that isn't an argument", " that isn't an argument".

You know good and well what was said in the last round is true of everyday life. It shows why we should live by something that will do what?

Continue us living . Hence we continue to do these things as we do them.

What is so hard about this?

Con
#8
  • Dropped/Extend.

z.1 Moral framework
  • Extend (see z.1 from round two as well as z from round one)

I. Practicality/Consequentialism
  • Dropped. Extend (see I. from rounds 1 & 2).

Conclusion
  • Pro cannot make a moral ought claim without bridging the is-ought divide, so a voting decision for this debate must necessarily go towards con. Pro has not made a valid argument that upholds the resolution and has dropped all of con's arguments.