Debate: Morality

[Unome]

Debate #1

It is morally superior (better) to commit an act of evil, than to have evil done to you.


Let the debate begin…

[Smitty]

Morality requires a standard of right and wrong. Without one, it cannot exist. Therefore, the validity of your statement depends entirely on which moral standard we ascribe to. Most standards I'm familiar with, however, would consider committing an evil act immoral and being the victim of one, neutral.

[Unome]

Morality requires a standard of right and wrong. Without one, it cannot exist. Therefore, the validity of your statement depends entirely on which moral standard we ascribe to. Most standards I'm familiar with, however, would consider committing an evil act immoral and being the victim of one, neutral.

So your position is that morally evil actions are justifiable?

[Smitty]

So your position is that morally evil actions are justifiable?

No, my position is the opposite. To be the victim of an evil act is a morally neutral situation. To commit an evil act is immoral. But as I said above, morality can't really be debated unless the debaters ascribe to the same standard.

[Longbowman]

Morality isn't objective or universal or tangible. People have no free will anyway and do what they are programmed to do without having a choice in the matter. A reflex action cannot be considered malevolent or altruistic. Ergo there is no evil. Ergo the question is invalid.

[Mortimer]

Debate #1

It is morally superior (better) to commit an act of evil, than to have evil done to you.


Let the debate begin…

only in self-defense sense to me, like if you fight for your life

[Linebacker]

Most people have no idea of real morality.They have a false idea of what it is supposed to be.This is especially observed in 1st world countries,hardline on America.

[Unome]

No, my position is the opposite. To be the victim of an evil act is a morally neutral situation. To commit an evil act is immoral. But as I said above, morality can't really be debated unless the debaters ascribe to the same standard.

On the contrary,

Being a victim is morally weak and inferior; being a perpetrator is morally strong and superior.

Somebody who is morally accountable (responsible), capable of choosing between good or evil, is moral.

Victimhood, being unaccountable and irresponsible for yourself, is immoral.

[Unome]

Morality isn't objective or universal or tangible. People have no free will anyway and do what they are programmed to do without having a choice in the matter. A reflex action cannot be considered malevolent or altruistic. Ergo there is no evil. Ergo the question is invalid.

Even if all actions were reflexive/instinctive then people still would (and do) deem certain actions in certain contexts, as good or evil.

Objectivity is a moot point. People judge each-other everyday, and actions, as good or evil.

[Drawing-slim]

I think morality can only be inherited genetically. Very few show signs of morally superior beings. And those are very special creatures. I hate the assumtions of third worlders or religiously oppressed people that somehow "the west lacks people with morals". Some of the most supreme souls are produced by the west, raised under all temptations and dirty tricks imaginable and still maintained their moral superiority throughout their existences. I sincerely love good people.