Can one prove something is immoral without using emotional appeal?
Can I prove that murder is immoral without appealing to the audience's emotions? Is it impossible to develope a logic as to how murder is wrong without their needing to be emotion involved? Can one logically conclude murder is wrong without it being an emotional appeal to any degree?
Yes, because...
Side Score: 12
|
 |
No, because...
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
God: ye shall do no murder .... . Jesus: .. But from the beginning of creation .. God made them male and female .. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother .. and the two shall become one flesh .. so they are no longer two .. but one flesh .. what therefore God has joined together .. let no man separate ....... Mark 10:6-9 .. http://dadmansabode.com/forum/ . God (designer of man) sets the standard and definition as to what is moral and immoral . apart from God .... all "morality" is subjective . . . if you don't believe in slavery .. then don't own one .. but who are you to judge another man's truth Side: Yes, because...
1
point
It would rely on your definition of immorality. I define immoral behavior as an unnecessary action that harms society. Murder as general concept is harmful to society because it removes a participant permanently, mathematically reducing their future contributions to 0, so it reduces the maximized potential of the society. Also, without understanding it as immoral, society would presumably be destabilized or destroyed. I'm pretty sure there is no emotional appeal in there, although I suppose it could be implied that I am appealing to the concept that a stable or maximized society is better than the alternative. Side: Yes, because...
1
point
However, if someone agrees with my definition, then I can do what the question is asking. Or if they provide a similar definition that I am willing to agree to. If such arrangements cannot be made, then it is not possible. Like I said right at the beginning, it depends how you define it. However, since I have provided a set of circumstances under which it is possible, I affirm that I can do so, at least under those circumstances. A response of "no" indicates that I cannot under any. Side: Yes, because...
The alternative is that murder is only wrong if someone feels sad about it. Murder is inherently wrong because to live is positive. It has to be positive because it is something that every human being naturally strives for. Survival is hardwired in to every cell in our body. Therefore, to deny something that every human being is striving for (irrespective of that individuals conscious desires) is, prima facie, immoral. Side: Yes, because...
2
points
The alternative is that murder is only wrong if someone feels sad about it. Murder is considered wrong because it is taking the life away from another person, which as compassionate beings, we don't want that to happen. emotional appeal. Murder is inherently wrong because to live is positive. It has to be positive because it is something that every human being naturally strives for. Survival is hardwired in to every cell in our body. Therefore, to deny something that every human being is striving for (irrespective of that individuals conscious desires) is, prima facie, immoral. Can you give me a logic as to how taking away what someone strives for is immoral, without it being an emotional appeal? Side: No, because...
|
4
points
There's the Kantian account of morality that states that acts are immoral if it's logically impossible to make them a universal maxim. According to Kant, lying is immoral because it's logically impossible to lie if everybody were supposed to lie. There's a subtle but crucial point here which is often misunderstood. Kant is not saying that lying is bad because it would have bad consequences. Rather he is investigating what lying means. When we lie we intentionally misrepresent truth, therefore when we lie we inherently presuppose that our words carry truth. When we speak we necesarilly assume that our words correspond to truth. If we make it a universal rule that everyone ought to lie, then we contradict the assumption that words correspond with truth. But lying depends on this assumption so if we remove it, lying becomes impossible - you can't lie in a world where words aren't supposed to correspond with truth. Therefore, it's impossible to lie if we make lying the universal maxim. Kant doesn't appeal to emotion anywhere. He is simply stating that acts like lying are immoral because it would be logically impossible to make these acts the universal rule. It's a cold analytical argument, and it seems quite compelling. I don't know what proof refers to in this context, but I do believe we can convince people about the truth of moral propositions without appealing to emotions. Side: No, because...
2
points
You only need faith in the Bible if you want to be in line with why the moral rules are their. But, theoretically, you can pick up a Bible, or other book, and just say that you will follow those rules because someone thought they were important to write down. Let's pick a different book. I thought that the animals in Animal Farm could have succeeded if they had just followed their original rules. Let's take those rules and say it is immoral to break them. Side: Yes, because...
2
points
But how do we form those social contracts? People have different social contracts, and that is an inquiry of morality, which contracts are more moral? For example I can hold a social contract that we should not tell white lies to save people's feelings while another holds the social contracts that white lies should be told to save people's feelings, either of these have different reasoning as well as different emotional appeals, one is an emotional disturbance of hurting someone's feelings, another is emotional disturbance of being dishonest. Also you have to take into account times where oppression took place, if an African American man back in the old days refused to be subservient he (or she) is breaking a social contract, would you call that immoral? Wouldn't social contracts come from emotional appeal? I'm intruiged by you mentioning a social contract theory, is that a thing beyond this site or were you referring to my related response in your debate? Side: Yes, because...
I don't think there is such thing as morals, other than the contracts formed by evolution, I agree with you on that it came about through evolution (on the other page, though I disagree on that one point). I would say however that emotions are also the result of evolution. (My original statement is made for the other side) Side: Yes, because...
|
