Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

THE GREAT DEBATES! (Round 5! pg. 16)

Posted Jun 24, '14 at 11:18am

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,374 posts

Knight

So challenging it on the grounds that you only have the possibility to save someone changes the thought experiment.

That's understood, but in the general basis of logic you're only given the possibility to save those people. There is no reassurance that I will save them, or any physics behind the case scenario that ensures I will succeed in saving those five people after the one has been slain. The wording of the sentence even states that my failure is not taken into consideration.

It is *never* morally permissible to kill 1 person in order to save 5.

In order to is the key phrase in that sentence. In order to, according to the dictionary sources I have looked at, means " For the purpose of". Purpose is the reason behind the action but does not include the successful result of an action. If the sentence were, for example, "It is *never* morally permissible to kill 1 person to inevitably save 5." it would be a different case. My argument included the physics behind that situation, which is only the possibility to save someone.


last edited Jun 24 2014 11:21 am by Minotaur55
 

Posted Jun 24, '14 at 12:53pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,293 posts

Moderator

Oh, I see what you mean, Mino. If I do X in order to achieve Y, something might still go wrong in the process. This was actually an exam question I had last term. Maybe I should have worded it differently!

 

Posted Jun 25, '14 at 4:08am

TheRed555

TheRed555

144 posts

Anybody can pursue happiness,for example,if you want to get happy,you could go on a trip out with your friends,visit another city,go to the beach,go practice your favourite sport etc.,however,because unhappiness is unpredictable,you cannot avoid all kinds of it,it comes all of a sudden,and sad events happen anywhere,for example,your brother could get a fine for driving at high speed,or your child could get a bad mark at an exam,making you sad and unhappy,you cannot really predict or avoid such events,that's why it's better to do your best to be happy,thus,pursuing happiness is more valuable than avoiding unhappiness.

@Moegreche Again,thanks for pointing me to the right direction,I think that I have another argument,this is not a revision of my previous work.

 

Posted Jun 25, '14 at 9:37am

KentyBK

KentyBK

570 posts

One objection you could have looked at is whether understanding is just a species of knowledge.


As a matter of fact, I was considering that idea. Something along the lines of "Understanding is the knowledge of how to apply previous knowledge". But I couldn't quite include it into my argument without sounding contradictory. It's an interesting change of perspective though.
 

Posted Jun 25, '14 at 10:54am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,293 posts

Moderator

@TheRed555 - You continue to make some excellent points. I was on the fence about whether which position was correct, but you've pretty much convinced me that pursuing happiness is better than avoiding unhappiness. If you want to participate again in the future (and I really hope that do!) just take these great ideas and really spend some time with them. You should shoot for something about 5 paragraphs long, with each paragraph doing a particular job for you. So in the first paragraph, you could set up the problem and give your view. Then in the second you explain why your view is correct. In the third, you could give examples (or cases, as we like to call them in the philosophy biz) that support your claim. And then spend the rest of the time looking at and responding to objections. I bet in your native language you would absolutely crush this thing!

@KentyBK - Yeah, I don't blame you at all for not looking at that objection. I doubt it would've gone anywhere anyway. It's especially hard for me to think of objections to your views because I personally vehemently agree with pretty much everything you argued for. On a side note, I don't think understanding is a species of knowledge, but this would be an entire argument in and of itself!

 

Posted Sep 3, '14 at 5:40am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,293 posts

Moderator

After an embarrassingly long amount of time, I've finally gotten around to awarding merits and/or quests to the participants for Round 2. I fully intend on making this more regular, starting this weekend.

In the meantime, if you participated but didn't receive a merit/quest, feel free to ask me why on my profile. It could just be that I missed it, or it could just be Disqus taking 3 days to update

At any rate, I hope you guys are looking forward to Round 3 in the next few days! I'll put the sign up sheet in the normal place (the AMW thread) once things are ready to go on my end.

 

Posted Sep 19, '14 at 5:59pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,293 posts

Moderator

After quite a lull there, Round 3 of The Great Debates is getting ready to start. Please make sure to read the rules and how things work (found on page 1 of this thread) before signing up. Once you're ready, the sign up thread is in the AMW section. Here's the link:

Be sure to get your name in quickly as spaces are limited. And don't forget about those yummy quests and merits that you can earn! Happy debating!


last edited Sep 19 2014 06:00 pm by Moegreche
 

Posted Sep 23, '14 at 11:25pm

riku_ullman

riku_ullman

1,105 posts

do we start?

 

Posted Sep 24, '14 at 4:47am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,549 posts

Knight

Not yet Riku, the sign ups aren't closed yet.

 

Posted Sep 27, '14 at 5:14am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,293 posts

Moderator

All right, everyone. Round 3 of The Great Debates has officially commenced! Below you will find your name below a question, so that's the one you've been assigned. Here are a few things to keep in mind.

1) You're not competing against anyone here - we're just focused on giving tight arguments. So don't worry about what anyone else is doing.

2) A good argument is tightly focused and will anticipate and respond to objections.

3) If you're confused about a question or would like to ask me something, it's probably best to ask here. My Disqus comments seem to be behaving weirdly.

4) Remember that I give feedback after you post your argument. You can, if you like, revise and resubmit if there are things you overlooked or would like to shore up.

Anyway, here are the questions. Good luck and have fun!

People in affluent countries are morally obligated to give to charity for those in poor countries.
@danielo
@RaonAbsoluteZERO

People in affluent countries are *not* morally obligated to give to charity for those in poor countries.
@pangtongshu
@DarthTyrannausarus

We can know that we're not being radically decieved (e.g. that we're in the Matrix).
@09philj
@nichodemus

We *cannot* know that we're not being radically decieved (e.g. that we're in the Matrix).
@R2D21999
@Minotaur55

Ferrets are better animals than horses.
@Ferret
@ellock

Horses are better animals that ferrets.
@Lowco1
@michaelandhsm2

When is having an abortion morally permissible? (take whatever stance you like here)
@MoonFairy
@Frank_Frooton
@apldeap123
@JACKinbigletters

Carrots are more valuable than bananas.
@Kennethhartanto
@nivlac724

Bananas are more valuable than carrots.
@riku_ullman
@Laspa

Assess and respond to this argument (either in favour or against):
1) It's already either true or false that you will eat dinner tomorrow.
2) If it's already either true or false that you will eat dinner tomorrow, then there's nothing you can do to change that fact.
3) If there's nothing you can do to change some fact, then you lack free will in that respect.
4) Therefore, you lack free will over whether you will eat dinner tomorrow.
@Katrose
@Hahiha
@Nerdsoft
@xXxDAPRO89xXx


last edited Sep 27 2014 05:30 am by Moegreche
 
Reply to THE GREAT DEBATES! (Round 5! pg. 16)

You must be logged in to post a reply!