Instigator / Pro
4
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Topic
#3615
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
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Tags
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
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
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. Kindly extending the opportunity to anyone else that is interested as well.
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
- Pro is making an ought statement, and must functionally bridge the is-ought gap divide.
- Pro is making a moral claim and must posit a framework of moral acceptability.
- 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
- None provided, extend. Pro denies he must do this but holding the full burden of proof, he is making an ought claim, however, philosopher David Hume has shown us that "you cannot deduce moral conclusions, featuring moral words such as ‘ought’, from non-moral premises, that is premises from which the moral words are absent."
- I suspect I will win on this point alone, so I will continue to extend it upon being dropped by the instigator.
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
"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."
I'll say it again . People do and should do what is justified to get the result they're seeking. Why? In order to get the specified result , a person should do or will have to do what it is to get it.
Why should it be justified or how is it justified?
Is this the answer you're looking for?
"We should live and do live by doing what is to be done to get the results necessary."
Here is what you quoted from me. So you see I make it very clear and I just rephrased above.
"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. "
What is it about this statement "We should live and do live by doing what is to be done to get the results necessary." that is not suffice for validity of the debate topic?
"Moral framework"
"None provided, extend. Pro denies he must do this but holding the full burden of proof, he is making an ought claim"
I'm not making any points regarding morality. No where in this debate, in the description, anywhere but pointing out the difference in living and not living by something.
Which once more , if somebody's aim is to live, what they're living by is crucial which where justification comes in .
If you don't understand that, I can unpack that further as well.
"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."
Is murder justified because the end result is a dead person?
No there's no such thing as justified murder.
Now an example of someone being much alive and healthy as a result from healthy diet and exercise, is the particular diet and active lifestyle justified?
Yes, the end result justified the means.
To get the end result here, doing what has to be done or should be done to get it is the justification. We do and should live by what justifiably results in us to continue to live, hence we live by it.
The key terms are "live by". There are many things like that example I gave where we can live by rightfully so.
Your example obviously is one we can't live by.
Much kudos to the courts to see that to overturn the abortion laws .
Just a side note.
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.
I'll say it again . People do and should do what is justified to get the result they're seeking. Why? In order to get the specified result , a person should do or will have to do what it is to get it.
- Circular reasoning: In essence: "people should do what gets the result they want because it gets the result they want."
- In addition, Mall states "what is justified," however he gives us no moral framework by which we can know what is justified or not despite holding the full burden of proof.
z.1 Moral framework
- None provided, extend (see z.1 from round two as well as z from round one)
I'm not making any points regarding morality. No where in this debate, in the description, anywhere but pointing out the difference in living and not living by something.
- Pro is claiming what we ought to do, thus, he must establish what is and what is not justified, and thus he must provide a moral/ethical framework. if not, then anything could be justified by the notions of the resolution like the holocaust, etc. The ends justify the means itself is an assertion concerning moral importance (see z. round one). How do we know what is of moral importance if pro has not even given us a moral framework?
I. Practicality/Consequentialism
- Dropped. Extend.
- My murder analogy is responded to in an incoherent manner where Mall makes unsubstantiated claims proponent to his lack of moral framework. The consequence is that Mall has not proven what can be justified or unjustified. If this is the case, pro argues that we ought to live in a chaotic society if people can act in accordance with whatever they feel is such.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Strawman to what I said.
" In essence: "people should do what gets the result they want because it gets the result they want." "
In order to get a certain result, what will have to be done is what should be done to get it.
You strawed "want " into it. Cause and effect is not circular reasoning, it's just logical from the basis to the conclusion.
The basis to a conclusion is not going in a circle, it's a one way direction.
"In addition, Mall states "what is justified," however he gives us no moral framework by which we can know what is justified or not despite holding the full burden of proof."
I'm not arguing morality. I think I stated that .
"Pro is claiming what we ought to do, thus, he must establish what is and what is not justified, and thus he must provide a moral/ethical framework."
Justification doesn't necessarily automatically tie to morality.
For instance the law of the land is concerning the law based on the governments, not morality.
But the law is expected to be justified and be about justice .
Furthermore, the law of causality (cause and effect), scientists don't argue morality into this natural law.
It's just scientific observation.
The word "should " has to do with some basis to require.
None of this warrants morality. You're conflating a lot of things out of pocket
"if not, then anything could be justified by the notions of the resolution like the holocaust, "
If you don't know what justification is, then you would obviously say that.
Let's look at and observe with science what is referred to as what justification is on a day to day occurrence.
What did I say about a healthy diet and active lifestyle?
The result it leaves the body in which prolongs or extends life says that the method of which put forth is what is called justified.
Not to mention because it's already indicated that this is an example we should live by , why?
It's because we do live by it.
Now so what?
I think this is your contention. Why is it that just because we already live by it, we should?
Think about it?
What's the keywords here?
"Live by it". You can't live by something that is constantly hindering you to live, tearing down your body. We call that unhealthy which is the opposite of my example.
We should live by it or live by these things or else we won't have a life much for long to live by it.
For instance, you'd pick an example of something that's a destructive principle to live by such as living by the sword or living life in the fast lane.
You can't live that way because the expectation is you won't live for long doing that.
When the aim is to live, that's a no-no.
You shouldn't live that way when the goal is to live.
Just cause and effect. Not thinking morals or ethics here comrade.
"How do we know what is of moral importance if pro has not even given us a moral framework? "
What I put forth above is more than enough to help you understand what I'm saying hopefully. If not , too bad this site doesn't offer more rounds.
"My murder analogy is responded to in an incoherent manner where Mall makes unsubstantiated claims proponent to his lack of moral framework. The consequence is that Mall has not proven what can be justified or unjustified. If this is the case, pro argues that we ought to live in a chaotic society if people can act in accordance with whatever they feel is such. "
I don't know what you do not understand or what you don't comprehend about my response to your negative example.
I do understand that you have to pick a negative example to apply to the topic while I pick a positive one. But if a positive one exists, it makes the topic statement valid.
I'm just going to repost what I stated because it's a gang of information in depth that is very much true.
Just because you're on the opposing side, doesn't mean you can't acknowledge an agreement some place on what's true.
We're learning comrades, not bloodthirsty combative mercenaries.
I'll repost this once more .
Let's look at and observe with science what is referred to as what justification is on a day to day occurrence.
What did I say about a healthy diet and active lifestyle?
The result it leaves the body in which prolongs or extends life says that the method of which put forth is what is called justified.
Not to mention because it's already indicated that this is an example we should live by , why?
It's because we do live by it.
Now so what?
I think this is your contention. Why is it that just because we already live by it, we should?
Think about it?
What's the keywords here?
"Live by it". You can't live by something that is constantly hindering you to live, tearing down your body. We call that unhealthy which is the opposite of my example.
We should live by it or live by these things or else we won't have a life much for long to live by it.
For instance, you'd pick an example of something that's a destructive principle to live by such as living by the sword or living life in the fast lane.
You can't live that way because the expectation is you won't live for long doing that.
When the aim is to live, that's a no-no.
You shouldn't live that way when the goal is to live.
Just cause and effect. Not thinking morals or ethics here comrade.
Con
#8
- Extend our previous assertions. Pro drops this point in its entirety.
z.1 Moral framework
- Extend (see z.1 from round three, two and z from round one).
- Pro continues to deny that he needs to provide a moral framework for his own principle which "a goal is morally important enough." Thus, we can conclude he does not even understand his own resolution.
I'm not making any points regarding morality.
- Thus, under pro's assertion any justification could suffice for any end. Even if it were for a school shooting.
Just cause and effect. Not thinking morals or ethics here comrade.
- Cause and effect applies to any set of actions, including serial killing.
I. Practicality/Consequentialism
- Dropped. Extend (see I. from rounds 1 & 2). Ultimately pro has given us no moral framework, no bridge of the is-ought divide, and a stream of gibberish.
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.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.
We live everyday by this maxim. For those results we get from it is why it should be .
I appreciate the very few that vote on that reality.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Con’s in-ought rebuttal reinforces the saying. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem appears to be a nail.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate by both debaters. Instead, the voter appears to award points based on a minimally explained problem with Con’s argument and a personal perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
Please remove this vote.
Please remove this vote.
My aren't we greedy. I believe others wanted in on this topic. There'll be most likely duplicate arguments.