Instigator / Pro
1341
rating
72
debates
18.75%
won
Topic

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

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's second argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
1662
rating
15
debates
90.0%
won
Description
~ 627 / 5,000

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. Kindly extending the opportunity to anyone else that is interested as well.

Come on with it.

Round 1
Pro
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
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
"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.




Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet