Consequentialism: Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
It is easier to kill yourself with a gun than it is with a knife. A knife requires a slash. If a person feels the pain of the slash and decides to let go. They might still be saved whereas a shot to the head is almost always death.
Knifes are less effective then guns. Guns kill quicker and can kill from a distance. I much rather have less people die then for some to die painfully.
Quote your source about the UK not Jamaica. I don't care about a country that isn't a fair comparison to the US.
>>It was about protecting ourselves from the biggest mass shooter in history; a mass shooter that has slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century
Persuasive rhetoric with I am guessing about Stalin. I feel sorry for the indoctrination you are going through. The problem with what you said is that the general populace did not get involved with that war nor did they have to which meant everyone citizen that isn't in the army pretty much had guns but didn't use it. Your argument would only work if Stalin was close to conquering the US but he wasn't.
>>what is Donald Trump doing to illegal immigrants, who don´t have guns to protect themselves?
So instead of advocating for Trump to stop doing bad we should give people guns? So you much rather American citizens die for the right to bear arms instead of simply making Trump do good. Okay.
>>Would he deport the 11 million illegal immigrants if they had guns to protect themselves?
Maybe not but I know what will happen? A lot of American citizens would die all thanks to the hypothetical world you created. Are you going to be happy about that? Don't think so. How about improving the immigration system instead of giving persuasive rhetoric okay?
>>The intentions exist, whether or not we know them.
If we don't know it then we don't know their intentions. This does matter. My stance is that we can't know intentions which is why I judge people based on their actions. This can be the words they see or the actions outside of words they do.
>>They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?
You can only state that they wanted to do X because they failed to do it or prepared to do it. That doesn't tell you why they did it.
>>His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.
Ethics: moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
Wylted is correct. Just another word for morals.
Wylted is also correct about intentions. We shouldn't even set that bar because we can never truly know what people are thinking (qualms for short) so it is best to go by people's consequences after hearing it is bad but they still do it while also having a level-head when making that bad decision.
He pretty much said what the ancestors did more good than bad so we should adopt what they did. "but what what about all the good things our ancestors taught us- moral values, teaching us how to make things, not to mention teaching us how to survive. Overall, the good outways the bad so I think we can trust them until we can realistically prove otherwise."
This is like any other debate where there is a contention and we debate it. It just so happens were debating if T-series should be called the first creator to reach 100 million. This can be in another where we can talk about whether or not God exists. We can both accept the same definition but that would mean we would be arguing about something else.
>>If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered.
Death can't be conquered because there is no evidence of it. Some people are hopeless. I only wish you are given the tools to realize that and change your view on things. Oh well.
Physical would be the baseline.
I guess therapy to determine mental abuse as well.
So physical harm as a bare minimum and mental abuse if therapists have agreed it to be so.
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
Could've tagged me sheesh.
>>do you think it's wrong to "use people" for your own pleasure or gratification?
If it is consensual and socially it is not harmful to either party then yes would I think the majority would say to it.
>>it does not care about intent.
One reason why that doesn't matter is we can't know it.
Consequentialism: Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
I don't know where you got your definition from.
>>Each side's argument has flaws.
What is the flaws of each?
>>That is a more efficient way to do it. There will be some discrepancies because people make mistakes.
Any improvements?
What is your position?
It is easier to kill yourself with a gun than it is with a knife. A knife requires a slash. If a person feels the pain of the slash and decides to let go. They might still be saved whereas a shot to the head is almost always death.
Knifes are less effective then guns. Guns kill quicker and can kill from a distance. I much rather have less people die then for some to die painfully.
Quote your source about the UK not Jamaica. I don't care about a country that isn't a fair comparison to the US.
>>It was about protecting ourselves from the biggest mass shooter in history; a mass shooter that has slaughtered 100 million people in the 20th century
Persuasive rhetoric with I am guessing about Stalin. I feel sorry for the indoctrination you are going through. The problem with what you said is that the general populace did not get involved with that war nor did they have to which meant everyone citizen that isn't in the army pretty much had guns but didn't use it. Your argument would only work if Stalin was close to conquering the US but he wasn't.
>>what is Donald Trump doing to illegal immigrants, who don´t have guns to protect themselves?
So instead of advocating for Trump to stop doing bad we should give people guns? So you much rather American citizens die for the right to bear arms instead of simply making Trump do good. Okay.
>>Would he deport the 11 million illegal immigrants if they had guns to protect themselves?
Maybe not but I know what will happen? A lot of American citizens would die all thanks to the hypothetical world you created. Are you going to be happy about that? Don't think so. How about improving the immigration system instead of giving persuasive rhetoric okay?
>>The intentions exist, whether or not we know them.
If we don't know it then we don't know their intentions. This does matter. My stance is that we can't know intentions which is why I judge people based on their actions. This can be the words they see or the actions outside of words they do.
I don't know lol.
More seriously: probably since it makes the most sense.
wowee.
Welcome to the dark side where you are one step closer to thou shall not be named action.
He said that?
Well I hope he learns how to make better arguments or finds that God doesn't exist.
>>what they intended to do
How do we find out what people's intentions?
>>why you wanted to achieve something
This is intent.
Intent: intention or purpose.
A purpose is a why you want to do something. We can't truly know that.
>>They attempt to commit a crime (attempted murder, attempted theft, etc.) If someone tried to commit a crime but failed, doesn't that tell us that he intended to commit a crime?
You can only state that they wanted to do X because they failed to do it or prepared to do it. That doesn't tell you why they did it.
>>both by their intentions
How can you judge people by their intentions when you can't know them?
>>It makes sense to judge actions by consequences, but judge people by intentions.
Can you say this in a different way?
>>I wouldn't say that I'm a consequentialist, but I understand their points.
What are you then?
Then you are a consequentialist. Good one.
So Trent0405's vote?
>>His stealing would be moral but not ethical, since morality is determined by the person themselves, while ethics are determined by society. I'm sure you agree that society does not consider stealing millions of dollars ethical.
Ethics: moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
Wylted is correct. Just another word for morals.
Wylted is also correct about intentions. We shouldn't even set that bar because we can never truly know what people are thinking (qualms for short) so it is best to go by people's consequences after hearing it is bad but they still do it while also having a level-head when making that bad decision.
If he values himself over stealing then yes Wylted would be ethical in that value framework and if we ought to value our values.
Guess so.
Doubtful stealing would work out for the long term.
I would say go through college, uni route. Doubtful a company would hire a person with just skill alone. They would like qualifications as well.
He pretty much said what the ancestors did more good than bad so we should adopt what they did. "but what what about all the good things our ancestors taught us- moral values, teaching us how to make things, not to mention teaching us how to survive. Overall, the good outways the bad so I think we can trust them until we can realistically prove otherwise."
Ask him to make it again with 2 week deadline.
And have someone constantly telling you to post an argument. Just have a reminder on your phone or something.
Hey I tried that!
Maaaaan
So......
Guess you must've realized you were defending socialism.
wowee
This is like any other debate where there is a contention and we debate it. It just so happens were debating if T-series should be called the first creator to reach 100 million. This can be in another where we can talk about whether or not God exists. We can both accept the same definition but that would mean we would be arguing about something else.
1st vote easy takedown.
I think this person didn't really think things through. Oh well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBQkdsajVE
Shhhhh.
Just vote for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBQkdsajVE
Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
>>If he hadn't raised from the dead, then death could not be conquered.
Death can't be conquered because there is no evidence of it. Some people are hopeless. I only wish you are given the tools to realize that and change your view on things. Oh well.
That is not how you vote.
Where are thine guardsmen of the lord?
Like you quit from debating.
Does the word copy not register?
Thanks. Good luck to you as well.
It will basically go like this:
I think we should ought to favor my definition because yada yada yada.
You think we should ought to favor your definition because yada yada yada.
We are going to be arguing over the definitions. If I define it to my favor. I win. If I define it in your favor you win.
What part of what is being argued don't you get?
It is like me making a debate about No proof for God and stating God is proof less. I have defined myself to win.
Guessing you don't want to accept so I will have it open.
Wowee